The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-17 00:00:00

THE PERTH AND DRUMMOND PEERAGE.

Their Lordships then proceeded to hear the further
arguments in this case, on which
Mr. FLEMING, can behalf of the claimants, summed up
the case on Thursday last. We have already given
the facts of the case in detail, and we now only
present our readers with a summary of these facts.
In the year 1605, James, the fourth Lord Drummond,
was created Earl of Perth, with limitation to his heirs
male. He died in 1611, without male issue. His brother
John then became second Earl of Perth, and was suc-
ceeded by his eldest son James, who became third earl,
and died in 1675. The son of this last named person
then succeeded to the title as fourth Earl of Perth. He
attached himself to the fortunes of the Stuarts, and left
Scotland in 1693, and went to reside at Saint Germains,
where he was created by James 11. Duke of Perth. His
son and grandson succeeded to this dignity, and were
styled at the French Court Dukes of Perth. They
joined in the schemes of the Pretender, and were suc-
cessively attainted in 1715 and 1745. The last of these
persons dying without issue male, the dignity of Earl
of Perth passed over to the male descendants of John
Drummond, the brother of the fourth earl. The second
son of this John had been created by the French King
a peer of France by the title of the Duke de Melfort.
The present claimant of the English earldom of Perth is
the great grandson of the John Drummond who thus re-
ceived the grant of a French title.
The LORD ADVOCATE addressed their Lordships to-
day against the claim, and occupied the Committee the
whole morning.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Lord DENMAN.)
COUNSEL AND CLIENTS.
The Court during the morning was occupied with
cases of interest only to the parties immediately con-
cerned. On the second case being called on,
Mr. Sergeant SHEN, who appeared for the plaintiff,
intimated that his Learned Friend, Mr. Parry, who ap-
peared for the defendant, was absent at the Central
Criminal Court, and that it would be well to postpone
the case until his arrival.
Lord DENMAN—What has that to do with the case ?
Mr. Sergeant SHEE—I thought it right to mention
his absence to your Lordship.
Lord DENMAN-1 he plaintiff must have a verdict if
he is entitled to it, notwithstanding the absence of his
counsel.
The solicitor for the defendant intimated his readiness
to conduct his client's case if his Lordship considered it
right to proceed.
Lord DENMAN considered that it should proceed, and
it proceeded accordingly. Mr. Parry, however, made his
appearance at the termination of the case of the plaintiff,
whose witnesses the solicitor had cross-examined. He,
however, arrived in time to address the jury on behalf
of the defendant; he apologised to the Court and the
jury for his absence, which he said hud been caused by
actual business.
Shortly after Mr. Sergeant SEEN had made the above
intimation he ruse again, and applied to his Lordship to
postpone the next case, in which both himself and Mr.
Knowles were engaged, until to-morrow.
Lord DENMAN—I am very unwilling to let it stand
over until to-morrow, because it will interfere with
other cases in the list. The parties ought to be ready.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE said Mr. Knowles (who appeared
in the Queen's Counsel-room without his wig and gown),
joined him in his application.
Lord DENMAN (with much emphasis)—Have you the
consent of the other parties who have cases on the list,
who, if the case is postponed until to-morrow, may be
displaced, and have no opportunity of having their cases
tried for six months perhaps.
Mr. Sergeant Shee resumed his seat disappointed at
his application having proved abortive, and Mr. Knowles
withdrew, and appeared some time after in the court,
wearing his wig and gown.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY

(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff-BURCIIELL.)
IRWIN AND ANOTHER V. ROGERS.

The plaintiffs in this action are attorneys, and the
action was brought to recover the sum of 91. Is. Gd. fur a
bill of costs.
The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted.
Mr. Nall, clerk to the plaintiffs, was called, and
proved that an appearance was entered for the defendant
were
1 l
in an action brought against him, and special pleas
put on the record that the defendant had been
b iht.ey
ddbeyti.enhi
madvaing ken the
the benefitof
proceedingsthas
the I nwseorle-
vlsrteoonmpt p
eAI ac. Act, n
consequencenthad admitted to him that he had
retained the plaintiff, but only to enter an appearance
for him.
Mr. Newington, an attorney, was called, and said that
the charges were reasonable and the proceedings neces•
sary under the circumstances of the case. The first
item was for making a demand of the attorney whether
the writ was issued by his authority, and searching
whether he had taken out his certificate; there was also
another item for attending for answer to demand. These
were ordinary charges where any doubt existed. There
were ten charges previous to the entering the appear-
' ante.

Mr. THOMAS, for the defendant, argued that there
was not sufficient proof of the retainer, but if the ad-
mission of the defendant was to be taken at all, it could
be only as to entering an appearance, which would only
cost about 65., although in this bill preliminary charges
were made amounting to 335. It was the first time in
his experience that he ever knew of such inquiries being
charged for; it was " making" business.
The Learned UNDER• SHERIFF said that he could
readily conceive that such inquiries were very prudent,
for no doubt that a great many writs were issued by
persons not attorneys, or in the names of attorneys who
knew nothing of the proceedings, which in that event
would be set aside. It had been urged for the defendant
that the plaintiffs ought at once to have entered the
appearance without going to the preliminary expenses.
That question might have been more satisfactorily deter-
mined if the defendant had had the bill taxed by the
proper officer. As it now stood the jury were the judges
of all the facts, and could also tax the bill. If they found
that there had been a retainer, they would say what
amount the plaintiffs were entitled to; but. it was hardly
credible any attorney wnuld take
.a retainer merely to
enter an appearance, which would
.involve. him in serious
responsibilities before the Court, if, having done so, he
did not proceed with the action, and a defendant could
enter an appearance himself if that were all required.
The jury, after a short consultation, gave a verdict
for 54

CRIMINAL C
LDUORT.- R T.(THIS DAY.)
O COU

(Before Lord Chief Justice WILDE and Mr. Justice
PATTESON.)

MURDER.—Gilbert 111. Donald, aged 46, described as a
carpenter, was charged with the wilful murder of Agnes
Al'llonald, his wife.
It appeared from the evidence that the deceased was
in the habit of constantly getting intoxicated, and on
the night of her death had been indulging her unfortu-
nate propensity. Some words arose between her and
the prisoner, and a quarrel ensued which led to the event
with which the prisoner was charged.
(The evidence was proceeding when we went to press.)

TRUBEYAN SOCIETY.—The 58th anniyersary of
this society was commemorated yesterday, at Trubey
House School, Woodford, when the medal and silrer
pen were both awarded to Master James Bishop, for
elocution and penmanship. After the contest and
the distribution of vari•us other prizes, according to
merit, the Trubeyans, with numerous friends, partook
of a cold collation, and retired much gratified with the
state of the school, as well as the ccurtesy and hospi-
tality shown them on the occasion.
NEW POTATOES FROM LISBON.—We understand
that new potatoes from Lisbon are selling in the Shudehill
fruit market at dye pounds for Is.