The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-13 00:00:00

VICE CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.

His Honour the VICE CHANCELLOR was occupied the
greater part of this morning with the part-heard motion of
" °livers v. Scott."

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.

DOE ON THE DEMISE OF WATTS e. LINDLEY.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT and Mr. MANNING, appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. CAMPBELL for the defendant.
This was an action of ejectment to recover possession of
two houses, upon the ground of a breach of the covenants of
the lease. The person under whom defendant held the premises,
purchased the lease in 1810 for 59 years, at a rent of 101. a year,
and paid 480/. for the lease. The premises were now let at
461. a year. It was contended that the covenants were broken
by the non-payment of the insurance, and by refusing to keep
the premises in necessary repair,

The case occupied nearly the whole of the morning, but the
particulars were wholly uninteresting except to the parties con-
cerned.

The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
1100 PER v. WARNER.

This case, which was understood to be an action to recover
damages from the defendant, for cries. con. with the wife of the
plaintiff, was called on, and the parties consented to a verdict
for the plaintiff for 4101.

CONSISTORY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

EXTRAORDINARY APPLICATION.

As soon as the Judge had taken his seat this morning, a lady
entered the Court, and intimated her desire to know how she
should proceed to obtain alimony allotted to her by the Court
many years since. She stated that she was the Countess
of Kirkwall, and that she wished to obtain the reversion of a
proceeding relative to the alleged last will of Lord Kirkwall.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that he could not interfere in any
matter having reference to wills, the Copsistorial Court had no
jurisdiction in such cases, and that application should be made
to Sir J. Nichol, the Judge of the Prerogative Court.
Lady Kirkwall said she wished to have the assistance of the
Court how to proceed. She had not been paid her alimony, on
the ground that Lord Kirkwall was dead. She was prepared to
prove that his Lordship was alive, and that she was injured in
her fair fame, and her rights kept from her. She implored the
Court to hear the papers she had presented read.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said if it was her Ladyship's wish he
would order the papers to be read.
The Registrar read the first document, and it purported to
be a copy of a petition addressed to the Lord Chancellor, setting
forth, in the most flowery language, the evils her Ladyship had
suffered.

LUSHINGTON said he could not permit the other
papers to be read, as they all appeared to be on matters of which
the Court could not take cognizance.
Lady Kirkwall said she could prove that Lord Kirkwall was
alive. She wished the Court to direct her how she should pro-
ceed. She had 1,42004 alimony allotted to her, none of which had
been paid.
LUSHINGTON said a monition should be taken out for
the payment of the alimony. He must have good and efficient
proof that Lord Kirkwall was alive.

Lady Kirkwall said she could procure good evidence that
the Noble Lord's will had passed probate improperly, and that
he was still alive.

lfer Ladyship, after some further conversation, retired.

BANKRUPTCY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Mr. Justice PELL, at the sitting of the Court tosday, took
occasion to remark, that in the case of ez,parte Brown, which
was heard on Saturday, he had not yet received a copy of the
petition. He wished the profession to understand, that the
Court would not in future entertain any matter unless the ne
cessary papers giving the Court an insight into the ma/Ur
brought forward were delivered.

Mr. SWANTON observed that there must be some mistake,
as his client had four copies of the petition made for the Court.

Mr. Justice pELL observed that such occurrences must not
take place in future.
The COURT then proceeded with the part heard case of
LOWE v. AARON,
which has already occupied their Honours two days.