Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

12 articles on this Page

J HINTS UPON GARDENING. .

SPORTS AND PASTIMES. --

CLA131 TO THE TITLE AND ESTATES…

News
Cite
Share

CLA131 TO THE TITLE AND ESTATES OF THE EARL OFBREADALBANE AND HOLLAND. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranworth, Lord West- bury, and Lord Colonsay sat in the House of Lords on Friday to hear an appeal from the decision of the First Division of the Court of Session in Scotland, in the case of Campbell v. Campbell. The appellant was Lieut. Charles William Campbell, formerly of the 19th and now of the 2nd Regiment of Bengal Cavalry, and he claimed, as against John Alexander Gavin Campbell of Glenfalloch, to be sixth Earl of Breadalbane and Holland, Viscount of Tay and Pentland, and Lord Glenorchy in the peerage of Scotland. The competitors claim through a common ancestor, William Campbell of Glenfalloch, who was their great-grandfather. The respondent claims through William Campbell's second son, and the appel- lant through his sixth son. The Attorney-General, Mr. Moncreiff, Mr. Anderson, Q.C., and Mr. J. Shiress Will appeared for the appel- lant and Sir R. Palmer, Mr. Mellish, Q.C., Mr. G. Young, Mr. James Adams, and Mr. Robert Berry repre- sented the respondent. The arguments in this appeal, after having eccupied the attention of their lordships for several days, were brought to a conclusion last week. The value of the estates involved in the appeal is very considerable, and indirectly the earldom of Breadalbane is also involved. The point upon which the case turns is whether a valid marriage, according to the laws of Scotland, took place between James, the second son of the common ancestor, and Elizabeth or Eliza Blanchard, or Ludlow. James Campbell died in October, 1806, and after his death Eliza Blanchard or Ludlow alleged that she had been married to him, and in the character of his widow applied to the War-office for pecuniary assistance in the following letter, dated the 23rd of June, 1807 I am the widow of Captain James Campbell, late quartermaster in the 1st battalion of the Breadalbane Fencibles, at the reduction of which he got a company in the Cambrian Rangers, and when that regiment was reduced, from ill health he was rendered unfit to enter again into his Majesty's service, and on the 24th October, 1806, my husband died insolvent, and left me with three children without the smallest means of sup- port. I applied to the half-pay agent respecting the Widows' Pension, and have made oath before a magis- trate but as I unfortunately lost my marriage lines in America, I am informed it cannot be procured. My husband was ensign and lieutenant in the 40th Regi- ment of Foot during the war with that country. At » the end of the year 1780 he came to England to recruit, and in September, 1782, I was married to Mr. Campbell in Edinburgh, by Mr. M'Gregor, the Gaelic minister (who is also dead), as is Ensign William Willox, of the 40th, who was the witness to our marriage; and the June following we went to America in the fleet that took out the pre- liminaries of peace 25 years ago. The present Gaelic minister have been wrote to, and he says that he got no register from any of his predecessors. I have adminis- tered at Doctors' Commons for four months' pay due to my husband at his death, and I have a power of attorney, which he sent me from Gibraltar at the time he was in the Cambrian Rangers. I beg, sir, you will excuse my being thus particular, as my motive is to obviate any doubts of my being Mr. Campbell's lawful wife." The contention on behalf of the appellant was that at the time of the alleged marriage Eliza Blanchard was a married woman, her husband, Christopher Ludlow, of Chipping Sodbury, Gloucestershire, being then living; while, on behalf of the respondent, it was alleged that even if Eliza Blanchard, said to have been married to Christopher Ludlow, were the same person who subse- quently married James Campbell, the pretended marriage between her and Christopher Ludlow was null and void, by reason of such marriage having been contracted with- out the consent of her guardian, she being a minor at the time. In answer to the respondent's contention that his father must be deemed legitimate, because his parents were man and wife by habit and repute, the appellant declared that inasmuch as the intercourse between the parties had had an adulterous commencement, no mar- riage, by habit and repute, according to the laws of Scot land, could result from it. At the conclusion of the arguments, Their lordships postponed judgment until the return of Lord Westbury from abroad.

THE HEALTH OF LONDON.

Advertising

AGRICULTURE.I

THE MODEL GOVERNMENT OF CHILI,…

MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR NEAR SLIGO.…

."———'.

MARRYING A WIDOW: A BAD BARGAIN.

[No title]

FACTS AND F ACE TIlE. --4--