The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-24 00:00:00

THE PERTH PEERAGE.

This case came before their Lordships upon the petition to
the Queen of George Drummond, now Duke of Melfort, in
France, claiming the title of Earl of Perth, in Scotland, as
the heir male general of James, the first Earl of Perth,
who was created in the year 1605. The title was
limited to him and his heirs male. He had issue an only
daughter, Lady Jane Drummond, who was afterwards mar-
ried to John Earl of Sutherland. On the death of the first
Earl, the title descended to his brother, who sat in Parlia-
ment in the reigns of James the Sixth and Charles the First.
The fourth Earl of Perth filled the office of Lord Chancellor
of Scotland in the reigns of Charles and James the Second ;
he was imprisoned in Stirling Castle after the Revolution,
' but by a warrant of the Lords of the Privy Council in June,
1693, he was released, upon giving security to de-
part the realm by the 15th of August following,
and not to return without the license of their Majesties or
the Privy Council. He left Scotland in obedience to this
undertaking, and subsequently joined the Court which James
the Second held at St. Germains. Shortly afterwards King
James issued letters patent by which he purported to create
the Earl Duke of Perth and Marquis of Drummond, and
those titles were at all times afterwards borne by
the Earl and his heirs male of his body until the ex-
tinction of Lie male issue in 1760. The Earl and
his male heirs were received and accepted as Duke
of Perth, at the Court of France. James Earl of Perth, styled
Duke of Perth, died at St. Germains on the 11th of May, 1716,
and in consequence of the attainder of his son, Lord Drum-
mond, in 1715, the dignity of Earl of Perth, on his decease,
became dormant. On the death of John, styled Duke of
Perth, the male issue of James, the attainted Lord Drum-
mond, failed, and it was contended for the claimant that on
that occasion the earldom of Perth, vested in
John Drummond (his brother), as the heir male
general of the grantee. John Drummond, the second
son of James third Earl of Perth, and next brother of James,
the fourth Earl, was created, in 1685, Viscount Melfort, and,
in 1686, Earl of Melfort and Lord Forth. A decree of for-
faulture was passed against him in the Parliament of Scot-
land, in July 1695, in consequence of his remaining in France
contrary to the provisions of the Act of Parliament in that
respect, then recently passed in Scotland; but that for-
feiture was not to prejudice the Earl's issue by his
first wife. Lord Melfort accompanied James the Second
to France, and that King, by letters patent, signed by his
own hand, purported to create the Earl Duke of Melfort.
On the death of King James, Louis XIV. accepted the Earl
of Melfort as Duke of the kingdom of France, and under that
he and his issue have ever since been Dukes of France. The
present claimant succeeded to that title upon the death of
his uncle, Charles Edward Drummond Duke De Melfort,
who was a priest and prelate of the Roman Catholic Church,
and principally resided at Rome, where he died in April,
1840.

Mr. Fleming appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-
General and the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Crown.
After the examination of several witnesses, and the putting
in in evidence of several documents, among which was the
original letter written by King James 11., granting the
dignity of Duke of Melfort, the further consideration of the
case was adjourned.
This being the last seal, the Equity Courts were occupied
the whole day with motions, but nothing of interest came
before them.

SHERIFFS' COURT, July 23.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BuRcHELL.)
MOUNIA CAVALI.IO.

The plaintiff in this action is an hotel-keeper, and the de-
fendant was described as a vine-grower and wine-merchant
at Bordeaux. The demand was for the sum of 8!. 17s. for
dinner and wine supplied to defendant and his friends.
A waiter was called, who proved that on the sth of June
last, a person named Paoli called at plaintiff's and ordered a
dinner for defendant, and a party of not more than six. The
next day defendant and Paoli went at the appointed time,
and afterwards some other gentlemen. Defendant left at
half-past nine, but the others remained till twelve. The plain-
tiff took the head of the table, which was, however, said
to be -customary in French hotels where the master was
invited. It was, however, argued for the defendant
that he was only to supply the wine, and it was not till he
charged for the wine that he was charged with the dinners.
Mr. Lewis, an attorney, was called, and proved that Paoli
said that he was requested to invite him and other gentlemen
to dine, and taste defendant's wines, in the hope that they
would prove satisfactory, and lead to a purchase. Witness
accordingly dined at plaintiff's; he (witness) having named
his house in preference to the South American Coffee House,
although Mr. Simmons, the proprietor was to be a guest.
Defendant gave the orders whilst in the room.
The defendant's attorney said, that after this evidence,
which took him by surprise, as it was contrary to his ire.'
structions, he must let the case go to the jury.
The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.
HOLT V. STOCK.
This was an action to recover the sum of 171. 109. on a
bill of exchange. The defence was that it had been ob-
tained from the defendant by fraud.
The defendant was tenant to a Mrs. Myers, against whom
a bill in Chancery was filed, and in January last a receiver
was appointed. The bill was given to Myers on the Ist of
March, as it was alleged for rent in anticipation. Notice was
subsequently given from the receiver not to pay, and defen-
dant refused to pay again, and was distrained en in March.
The bill was sent to the plaintiff, who is a clerk to Myers'
solicitor, and he got it discounted, and it was now contended
that there was fraud on the part of Mrs. Myers in getting the
bill, and that plaintiff must have been aware of it. The ap-
pointment of the receiver, and of the distraint by him was not
made out, although an order of the court was produced, and
the Under-Sheriff; therefore, held that the plea was not
made out, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, July 23.
(Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a Common Jury.)
This was an action brought against the defendant as
one of the provisional committee of a projected railway,
called the Liverpool and Derby Direct Railway, to re-
cover the sum of 411. odd for printing the prospectuses
and other papers connected with the undertaking.
Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Peacock were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Shoe and Mr. Montague
Chambers for the defendant.
The evidence in support of the case for the plaintiff
was of a very slight character, and principally consisted
in the facts that his name appeared on the printed
prospectuses as one of the provisional committee, and
that upon reference being made to him as to the re-
spectability of a party who was applying for shares, he
wrote the word " good" upon the document sent to him.
It appeared that the scheme of the railway in question
was projected by an attorney, named Mount; and he ad-
mitted, on cross-examination, that the defendant had
never given any written authority for his name to be
placed upon the list of the provisional committee, but
that he received that authority from a person whom he
supposed acted for the defendant, and who, he admitted,
was in Court, although he was nut called as a witness.
Ede likewise admitted that the defendant, who, it appears,
is a barrister, never attended any meeting, or took the
slightest share in any proceeding connected with the
company ; and, also, that he was now acting as an at-
torney for the plaintiff in the present action.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE made an able address to the jury,
pointing out the weakness of the case for the plaintiff,
and called upon them not to sanction such an attempt
as the present to obtain money from the defendant,
when he had in no wise rendered himself responsible fur
the payment of it.
Mr. Baron PARKE briefly summed up, and left it to
the jury to say whether, upon the very meagre evidence
that had been produced, and taking into consideration
the fact that if the defendant had really sanctioned the
placing of his name upon the provisional committee, it
iN as admitted there was a witness in Court, who might
have been called to prove it, they could come to the
conclusion that the defendant was responsible for the
payment of the claim made upon him by the plaintiff.
The jury, after deliberating a few minutes, returned
a verdict fur the defendant.

Mr. Baron PARKE said he thought this was a proper
verdict. Persons ought not to be made liable for such
matters, .unless better evidence was offered than in the
present case.