DUKEDOM OF ARGYLL

Waipa Post, Volume 38, Issue 2271, 21 February 1929, Page 3

DUKEDOM OF ARGYLL

CLAIMS IN QUEENSLAND.

Claims involving the title to the dukedom of Argyll, which were described by Mr Justice Macnaughton as not only stale but of the most vague and shadowy nature, came before the Supreme Court in Brisbane at the end of last month (says the Melbourne Argus). The matter arose through an ' aplications for letters of administration in the estate of the late G. W. C. Wilson, architect, who died in Brisbane in August, 1913, intestate and insolvent. Mr Justice Macnaughton refused the application. The petition was made by A. W. M. Wilson, T. A. C. Wilson and L. C. Wilson, sons of deceased, and it was disclosed that in addition to the petitioners there were also one other son and three daughters living in Queensland. Mr Justice Macnaughton said that petitioners sworn in joint affidavit filed on July 15, 1927, that deceased had informed them that his father, who was known as Sir George Wilson, Knight Commander of the Tower and Sword of Portugal, was the only son of George William Campbell, sixth Duke of Argyll by his second wife, his first wife having died without issue. The sixth Duke of Argyll died about the year 1839 to 1841. The affidavit went on to allege that deceased did not at any time explain to petitioners for what reason Sir George Wilson changed his name or why he did not succeed to the dukedom of Argyll other than the statements that deceased had reason to believe that Sir George Wilson renounced his claim to the dukedom for his life, and accordingly changed his name, and that deceased on several occasions informed petitioners that when he was aged about 19 years he signed a document under pressure which had the effect of assigning his birthright. No copy of that document was available. They also swore that from other statements from deceased from time to time it would appear that he was to receive certain moneys from his family in Scotland and after his insolvency he informed petitioners that when he died they and the other children would be provided for. Mr Justice Macnaughton said that there was no suggestion that the claims to various property were in any way connected with the dukedom of Argyll. It was clear that the object of the application was not to have a few articles of jewellery, including an Argyll insignia and signet ring, administered, but to aid in some way the claims to the title and the. properties mentoined. It was not one Of the duties of the court to determine the abstract question of who was the proper representative of deceased, so as to assist suohi. representative to prosecute claims to titles and properties in England and Scotland. Mere grant of administration in Queensland would not in any way assist the petitioners. The motion, therefore, would be refused.