Star.
London, England, 1826-04-17 00:00:00

APPEALS-THE PEERAGE.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Aran 13..
Tug ADVOCATEIIIINERAL '9l SCOTLAND v. Ttlt.LIW.
OF tomerOuts AND onions AND a CONTRA. -
This was a Writ of Error from the Court of Ex-
chequer in Scotland. The qtiestion to be decided was,
whether lead made or produced from ore raised from
mines of which the defendant, the Errl of Hopetoun,
was owner, and the other defendants lessees, was liable
to the duties imposed on lead exported to foreign coun-
tries, in respect that by vari us grants from the Crown,
and Acts of Parliament of Scotland before the Union,
the produce of these mines was 4eclared to be for ever
exempted from the payment c:lstom duties. The
last grant of these mines was Mutt period which in-
tervened between the consent of the Parliament of
Scotland to the Article: of Uninis their ratification.
It was contended on the part of the Crown, that the
Parliament of Scotlatti, after consenting to the articles
of Union, were divested of the power of granting or
confirming a charter, and that even if they were not,
the Articles of Union, which imposed the necessity of
equalising all duties between the two countries, would
have rendered that power nugatory. For the defend-
ems it was argued, that they continued to export the
lead of these mines to foreign countries, duty frcelTrom
the Union down to 1793, without their 'right having'
been ever called into quellion ; and that further, by the
sixth Article •of Union, all private rights were kept
secure and untouched. The result of the investigation
before the Courts below was a judgment, declaring for
the plaintiff on the first count of the information,
thereby-subjecting the defendants to a certain but in-
considerable duty compared with the amount claimed,
and for the defendants on all the other counts. Against
this decision both parties appealed.

The appellant's case was bend to-day, and Mr. Adam for the
respondents.
The Loan CRANCELLOIL said, be could not say upon what day be
would be prepared to resume this case. The Fife case was ap-
pointed for Monday, but as some of the agents would be present on
that day, he would let them know when be would be ready.
BUCHANAN 0. MORRICB.

This was an appeal from the Courts of Scotland, and
in a great measure depended upon the construction of
'wets which passed between the patties. During the
war with France, both parties, or those whom they re-
ps esented, were in partnership, one residing in America,
and the other in this country. The partner in this
country wrote to the partner in America, stating, that
if he shipped any goods by.a certain vessel, he must ship
them at his own risk, and not on the panne, ship account.
The goods were, however, shipped, and profits realised ;
but the partner in this country, notwithstanding his
letters, claimed his share, contending the letters did Rot
bear the construction put on them, and this was the
question at issue.
Case fully beard, but judgment postponed.
WCALLUM V. ROBIRTSON.

This was also an appeal from the C,:urts of Scotland.
The question at issue related to the validity of an arbi-
tration. The original subject of dispute was a matter
of account, which was refwed to three arbitrators, two
of whom only pronhunced%e award, without any other
attestation than the assertion of the two that the third
differed in opinion from them. The appellant held, that
the award should have been Pronounced by all the ar-
'bitratois; while the respondent, with whom the events
below concurred, contended that where the majority
were of the same opinion, the assent or dissent of the
third arbitrator vi•as immaterial.
Both the appellant's and respondent's case was heard, but the re-
ply was postponed till Tuesday.
COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES.

The Committee resolved that the Earl of Dunslaven has made out
his claim to vote for Peers of Ireland.