The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY E ENI

THEBREADAT;!EANE
,Psp,R4GE.

EDINI3IIRGH COURT OF SESSION-JUNE 20.

Lieutenant Charles William Campbell, of the 19th Regi-
ment of Bengal Cavalry, presently at Sultanpore, claiming
to be sixth Earl of Breadalbane and Holland, Viscount of
Tay and Portland, Lord Glenorc'ny in the peerage of Scot-
land, for the appointment of a judicial factor on the entailed
estates of Breadalbane.

This petition came on for ccnsideration to-day.
Mr. Gifford opened the case for the petitioner. He stated
that he was the grandson of the sixth son of William
Campbell of Glenfalloch, and was thereby the nearest and
lawful heir of tailzie and provision of John, fifth Earl of
Breadalbane, who died on the Bth of Nov., 1862, wi.thont
leaving any lawful issue of his body. He had presented peti-
tions to the Sheriff of Chancerycraving to be served nearest
and lawful heir of tailzie and provision in special of the
said John, Marquis and Earl of Breadalbane, in the lends
and estates comprehended under the two deeds of entail.
He presented his petitions on 27th of February last. There
was another claimant, John Alexander Gavin Campbell of
Glenfalloch, who had also presented petitions to the Sheriff
of Chancery, alleging himself to be the nearest heir of
tailzie to the said John, Marquis and fifth Earl of Breadal-
bane, and who craved to be served in that character.
Nothing had as yet been done ers the petitions for service
except intimation. The petitioner proposed to have the
petition forthwith conjoined and advocated from the
Sheriff in Chancery to the Court of Session. As to the
competing complainant, he, the petitioner, averred that the
ground on which he impugned his alleged right was that
he claimed to be descended from James Campbell, the
sscond son of William Campbell of Glenfalloch, while the
petitioner was descended from John Campbell, the sixth
son. He alleged that ho was the grandson of the said James
Campbell by his martiage with Elizabeth or Eliza Maria
Blanchard, -which took place in September, 1782, by the
Rev, Mr. M‘Gregor, Gaelic minister in Edinburgh. In 1783
they went to America together. Now, at the time of this
marriage Elizabeth Maria Blanchard was a married woman.
She was the wife of Christopher Ludlow, of Chipping, Tod-
bury, Gloucestershire, who did not die till January, 1784.
She had eloped from her husband. Under these circum-
stances, the father of the claimant must have been illegiti-
mate, as he was the son of an adulterous connection, and,
therefore, the claimant is illegitimate also. The petitioner
offered to esteb!ish these facts by proof; and Mr. Gifford
submitted that this was a case in which the Court, in justice
to the petitioner, who claimed to be the nearest heir to the
late Earl of Breadalbane in the Breadalbane estates, should
sequestrate the whole rents thereof, and make them payable
to a judicial factor, so that, whoever proved himself the
party entitled to succeed, should obtain the whole proceeds
of the property during the period when the investigation of
their respective claims should go on. No harm would accrue
to either party from this course being adopted, and the
rights and interests of all concerned would be protected.
Mr. Clark opened the case for the competing claimant, the
respondent, John Alexander Gavin Campbell, and said that
the claimant's father was heir of entail of the estate of Glen-
falloch, the destination of which was identical with that of
the Breadalbane estates. When the respondent's father, in
1812 succeeded to Glenfalloch, the petitioner's grandfather
acted as factor for him, and directed and carried through
his service as heir of tailzie and provision to John Breadal-
bane Campbell in the lands and barony. Had the respon-
dent's father been illegitimate the grandfather of the peti-
tioner would himself have been entitled to the estate of
Glenfalloch, but no whisper was then breathed as to the
illegitimacy of the respondent's father, although the events
were then re cent, and must have been known had there been
any ground for supposing such a thing. The late Marquis of
Breadalbane appointed the respondent's father one of his
trustees, and he continued to act in that capacity till his
death; and upon the death of the Marquis his trustees and
executors at once recognised the respondent as the heir
apparent, entitled to the lands and estates, whose whole
charge was transferred to him, and he has had since then
the entire manngemenh The only por►ion of the property
not actually under his charge was Taymouth Castle, which
is still occupied by the Tate Marquis's servants, under an I
arrangement with him. He submitted, therefore, that there
were no grcunds for the appointment of a judicial factor
and for dispoeses3ing the respondent of his right as heir-
apparent.
Lord Deets said it was one of the facts the Court ought to
have known—namely, the date of the birth of the respon-
dent's father, who died in 1850. This fact might be of the
utmost importance, and parties must take the consequence
of absence of any statement on the subject. While he
would have expected some statement on the subject from the
petitioner, he would still more have expected it from the re-
spondent.
The Court took the case to avizandum.
Counsel fur the Petitioner—Mr. Patton and Mr. Gifford.
Agent—Mr. Henry Buchan, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Respondent—The Solicitor-General, Mr.
Clark, and Mr. Adam. Agents—Messrs. Adam, Kirk, and
Robertson, W.S.