The Express.
London, England, 1864-05-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—Kay 27.
APPEALS.

CLKIIIILL •. CAIEVIILL.-TEI BRELDALBAIri PIIALGII.

This was an appeal from the Conti of Session in Soot.
had, and the question involved we whether that court
was right in refusing to appoint • receiver to receive the
rents and administer the estate' of the fferklont of Breadal.
hum, until it be sacertained by proceedings now pending
who is the true heir to the estates and earldom The paints
DOW in dispute were whether the court 'below were
or were not bound in thee of a disputed succession
te appoint • roosts& of rents where • pnism fade ass had
teen mails out on both sides ; whether the appelleat bad
made out • prima facie case, and whether or not the
respondent, as heir apparent, wee entitled to keep possession
he alleged he had acquired during the proosedinp at law.
la the course of the cue the fact. relating to the disputed
stoessairm to the earldom presented • curious family
hP. It appeared that the sewed Marquis and fifth
ullgireadal bane died on the Bth November, 1862, without
=to, Bing at the time pawed under deeds of entail of
very large estates. On his death the title of marquis became
extinct, and two claimants appeared, each of whom coo-
tended that he was the sixth Earl of Breadalbane and es
etch entitled to pessemiou of the Mates. Tits first of these
claimants, John Alexander Gavin Campbell, alleged that he
was the heir male of his greet grandfather, William of Glen-
falloch, who was the adenine* in the deeds of entail under
which the lath marquis held the estates, end was related to
that nobleman in • Scotch cousinahip of tee removes.
William of Gleafalksch died in 1791, leering seven sons-1.
=three issue became extinct in the pence of John
bane in 1812; 2, James, who left one sou Wil-
liam John Lambe, the father of the first claimant ;
3, Duncan, who died unmarried in 1810; 4, Amid-
bald, who died without leaving heirs male in 1806 ; 5,
Wffliam, who died unmarried in 1791 ; 6, John of Boreland,
who left a son Charles, the father of Lieutenant Charles
William, the second claimant; and 7, Alexander, whose
base, if any, would not affect the present claims. The first
claimant, therefore, is the eldest in the succession and were
his legitimacy unquestioned he would undoubtedly be the
rightful earl, and the owner of the estates. Charles
• Campbell, the adverse claimant, now a lieutenant in
the 19th Bengal Cavalry, however, contends that John is
illegitimate, es the ground that his grandmother, Mrs.
Elisabeth Maria Blanchard, at the time she married his
grandfather, Captain James Campbell, in 1782,wasa married
woman, and that her husband, ono Christopher Ludlow,
we. then alive, and that therefore such second marriage
being void, their sot William, the father of the claimant.
John, was illegitinuits. In order to maks Get this case Lieu-
Wadi Charles Campbell state* that be has diacovered in
the marriage register of Chipppi Sodbury, in Gloucester-
shire, the following entry ' CChrstopher Ludlow,
pariah, and Elisabeth Maria Blanchard, of ye muse •
were married in this church by lion= this fifth day Jose,
in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventyeix, by
me, li. Coates, Curate." la the register of baptisms of the
male parish is an entry of the birth of • son Daniel,
the issue of Christopher and Elim Ludlow, in 1777.
Lieutenant Campbell proposes to prove that shortly after
the birth of this child this Mrs. Ludlow eloped from
her husbaud, which event caused the latter so much
distress that he gave up his practice as • medical man
in Sodbury and went to America, where he was for some
time garrison surgeon in New York. He returned to this
country some time in 1783, and died in January, 1784,
as was proved by an obituary notice in the Bristol saws-
paper of Saturday, the 31st of January, 1784. In addition
to this evidence of his existence at that date, his will is
=led, dated June 21, 1783, which was proved in the
tire Court of Canterbury, and probate granted in
1784. Captain James Campbell, the grandfather of John,
is stated to have married • Mrs. Eliot or Elisabeth Maria
Blanchard, the only evidence of such marriage being the
letter written in June, 1807, by the lady, seeking
pecuniary assistance, to the War-office,
_alter her
alleged husband's death, which occurred in October, 1806,
in which she described himself as the widow of Captain
Jame Campbell, to whom she wth married in September,
1782. The two, Elisabeth Maria Blanchard, being assumed
to be the same parson, it is alleged that, even admitting that
the latter marriage took place as stated in the letter, her
first husband was alive at the time, and it was therefore
void. Coder these circumstances it was contended that
John Campbell, as the descendant of the invalid
was illegitimate, which would leave Lieutenant
Campbell the eldest male heir in tbe succession sad the
rightful sueceesor to the title and estates. On the other
hand, Joho Campbell shows that for upwards of 50yeare he
and his father have been in undisputed ponsession of the
estate of Glanfalloch in the character of the nearest heirs
male of William of Glenfalloch. He and his father have
always been recognised as legitimate by the family, and it
is oily now, 80 years after the disputed marriage took
piths, that say question as to its validity has been raised.
In various deeds d entail executed by menthes, of the
family the respondent's father has been always named as
entitled to succeed before the appellant's father. The
appellant_ ham to make out that the person who married
sarstoptier Ludlow was the mane who married the tarpon-
dents grandfather, and thee that the respondent's father,
whine legitimacy is questioued, was born before the death
of Christopher Ludlow, otherwise the subsequent cohabite-
d= of his parents for saves years would render him legiti.
mate according to the Soot& laws, even if to proof of a
salthequent marriage between them could be established.
The use waa argued in the early part of this month, end
judgment postponed.
The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chelmdord held that the
Court of Session was right, on the ironed that the =Ton.
dent had • better prime facie oath Shea the appellant, and
afar:nod the decision of the court below.

Lard Wensleydale wm of a different opinion, bat
Tbe appeal was by a majority disallow&

This was an appeal 1 renitie Divorce Court, the facts of
which have been twice reported in thie journaL It may be
briefly stated that Mr. Gipps, the appellant, petitioned the
Court of Divorce to dimples his marriage with his wife on
account of her adultery with Mr. Pitawilliam Hume, M.P.
for the county of Wicklow. This petition was withdrawn
in consideration of the payment of a sum of 3,0001. ; but
Mr. Gipps subuqueetly Ileum that the intercourse had
bees renewed between his wife and Mr. Hume, the
result of which was the birth of two children, twins,
filed another petition for a divorce. This, it was arranged,
should also be withdrawn on Mr. Hume giving his bond for
4,0001., payable after the death of his mother, but for some
reason disputes arcs. oa this point, and Mr. Gipps filed a
bill in Chancery to compel specific performance of the pro-
mise to give the bond, but his snit failed. He then pro-
ceeded with his petition for a divorce, and the Judge Ordi-
nary (Sir C. Cromwell) dismissed the petition on the ground
that Mr. Gipps had connived at his wife's adultery. The
present appeal was then brought, and was argued a abort
time since, and judgment deferred.
In the course of the arguments it was arcked that by the
33rd section of the act estellishieg the Divorce Court, it
was allowed to institute proceedings simply to recover
damages and not for a divorce, thus practically retaiaing
the old action for damages for criminal conversation, which
it wan one of the objects of the Divorce Act to abolish. II
was argued that this was a point in favour of the appellant,
who had a right to receive money to prevent publicity.
The Lord Chancel or now stated his opinion, and laid
down that the connivance of the husband was folly nude
out, and that the appeal on every principle intended to be
established by the law must be &mused.
. . .

Lord Wenibirdale took a different view, holding that the
payment of mosey to the petitioner and his seeking to
obtain more was rely the exerciae of a legal right under the
statute to obtain costs and damages by a husband from ea
adulterer, and could Dot be construed into connivance is
the legal s?ess of that term. There were circumstances is

the one which required further inquiry and he thought the
judgment of the JadeeOrdinary should 'be act Aside, and the
matter remitted to the court below in order to its being
again tried by a jury.
Lord Chelmsford cooeurrins that the appellant's petition
was rightly dismiused, the appeal was diamond with meta