The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-11-29
ROMANCE OF THE PEERAGE.
REMARKABLE CASE IN TILE ENGLISH
Law COURTS.
ROMANCE OF THE PEER4GE.


LAW COURTS.
ROMANCE OF THE PEER4GE.
A Flight for .sTen Thousand a Year"
Against an IIeEitimnte Branch.
Towards the end Of the last century an
English baronet, Sir Frederick Fletcher Vane,
fell In love with a young lady named Hannah
Bowerpank. They lived together for some
years, and in 1884 q child was born to them,
an event followed in the next year by the
birth of O second child. Soon afterwards
Miss BoWerbank told her lover that ne must
either marry her or leave her, and ne consent
ed to marry her. The marriage was to take
place In February, 1871, but the lady was sud.
denly taken Ill, and was prematnrely deliver
ed of a third child. This delayed. the mar
Rage. which, however, was eolemnlzed three
weeks afterwards, viz March 9, l797.. The IN.
FAINT whose haste to enter this world or Bin and
sorrow made him lllegitimate, was baptised at
In the entry of his baptism he was stated to
have been born on the 10Th of March-twenty
days after the marriage of bis parents-instead
| of In the February before that event. The
| name given to the child. was Francis Fletcher
| Vane, aud he was recognized and brought up
by his father, as his legitimate son and heir.
But, after the marriage of his parents, two
other children were born to them, q daughter
and q SOD, of whose Legitimacy there could be
no doubt. This son was born May 8, 1907; and
If it be true that the other son was born be-
fore the marriage, the one born after 1t Is In
law The eldest son of bis. father-his brother
| being nobody and having no name. This lat
| heretofore commonly called Frederick Henry
| Vane,n Ia now q man of sixty-fVe years, and
the other day he Instituted a suit In the Vice
| Chancellor's Court against his nephew, the son
| of Francis Fletcher Vane, to obtain q declare.
ton that as this Francis Fletcher
was born before the marriage Of MS
parents, he was Legitimate, and could
nor transmit them to his " son, and that
he, Frederick, being the son born after the
| marriage, was the legitimate heir to the title
and estates. He asked In bis suit that he
| might be declared to be thus entitled, and
that his unfortunate nephew might be CON-
count to him for all their rents and profits up
to this time received. The estates are In
| Cumberland and Westmoreland, and are very
valuable. Francis Fletcher Vane married In
1928, and upon the death of his father, In 1882.
assumed the title and the family estates. He
died In 1912, aud the defendant, BIZ Henry
Ralph Vane, who was his eldest son, and con-
seuuently the nephew Of the plaintiff, sue
ceeded MIN. Lady Vsne, the widow OF Sir
Frederick Fletcher Vane, did not die until
1866, and the plaintiff accounted tor the length
ofuime which had elapsed before he attempted
to assert his rights by the statement that
from the year 1926, when ut the age OF nine.
teen he obtained q commission In the Twelfth
Lancers, down to the year 1866 he had only
been for o few days at o time at the family
place In Cumberland, and that In that year
he tor the first time became aware through
Inquiries made, In consequence OF some re-
marks let fall by the widow of Sir Francis,
and OF q subsequent conversation with the
widow of Sir Frederick before her death, that
there was any doubt as to
TIE LEGITIMACY OF HIS ELDER BROTHER.
The plaintiff further charged that the lille
gltimacy of Sir Francis was not only known
to sir Frederick aud bis vile, but also was dis
closed ty Sir Frederick 10 Sir Francis, and
was known By Sir Francis's wife and her
father, aud was fraudulently concealed from the
plaintiff. To this bill two demurrsrsh have been
put 10, one by Sir Henry Ralph Vane, aud tho
other by hIs mother, the widow OF Sir Francis;
and, as is the practice upon demurrer, the al
legations of the bill were for the sake of ar
gument. and for the sake OF argument only,
admitted to be true.
demurrer, argued that, even supposing the
plaintiffs case to be true (Which they denled),
the defendant, as an innocent holder, could
not after q lapse of thirty years be disturbed
In his possession. His title could not be put
lower than no title at all, and he could not
have been ousted If he had been a mere squat
ter. To entitle the plaintiff to come after
such q lapse OF time there must not only be
concealed fraud, but fraud 80 concealed that
by reasonable diligence 1t could not be dis
covered. There was here no such fraud az to
take the case out OF the statute OF limitations.
According TO the bill Lady Vane had fire.
quently spoken Of the circumstances, aud the
case being such as, according to the plaintiffs
own showing, should put him on inquiry, he
was necessary 10 save bis rights. The present
baronet, however, was, under the settlements
made on his fathers marriage, q purchaser for
valuable consideration Without notice, for he
was only twelve years old In 1872, when his
father died, and 1t was admitted that he was
no party to the alleged fraud.
The solicltor.general, Mr.. Glasse, Q. c., and
Mr.. Smart, for the bill, commended that the
plaintiff had not been guilty OF negligence,
and that the defendants argument amounted
to this, that the plaintiff Immediately on the
death Of his father ought to have gone to his
mother and asked for proof OF his elder
brothers legitimacy. Such a proposition was
perfectly monstrons. His father and mother
had by their acts asserted the Legitimacy of
EFAQclS, anu WaS IL 10 W Salu LnhI III U6llbVluR
his father and mother the plaintiff had shown
want of due diligence, especially when the
acts Of the parents were followed By legal
acts?
The Vice.chancellor said this was
AN EXTRAORDINARY AND VERY PAINFUL CASE,
and 1t had been very fully and ably argued on
both sides. He could not help feeling regret
that the case had been brought on by de-
murrer instead of coming 10 a hearing upon
It's merits, for 1t was one which affected the
honor and interests of q family of high POSI-
ten In life, and the iHcome OF the estates 10
question vas between 100000 and EGO, 900 a
year. Upon the lacts as stated 10 the bill,
and for the purposes Of the demurrer, he must
take them to be true. 1t appeared that at the
death of his father In 1892 the plaintiff was Ia
utter ignorance OF his father having had any
illegitlmate children at all, and had
no reason to suppose that his brother
Francis was Legitimate. Another clrcum-
stance which threw the plaintiff of his guard
was that In 1923 Francis married Lady Diana
Beauclerk, and the father and son having
Joined In q recovery barring the entail, the
| estates were resettled, and In 1873, when the
plaintiff attained twenty-one, he found Francis
| actual tenant in possession under the settle
/ ment OF 1928. Francis died in 1872, and then
the right of the plaintiff to the possession of
the estates a~ccrned-that Is, thirty years be-
fore the filing of this bill. II his case depend
| ed on the general law he was under no dis
| ability, and would not be barred by the
| statute unless he came within the twenty