In the Court of King's Bench, on Saturday, Sir James

Scarlett applied on behalf of the Earl of Stair for leave to file a criminal in- In the Court of King's Bench, on Saturday, Sir James Scarlett applied on behalf of the Earl of Stair for leave to file a criminal in- formation against . a Mr. Twisden, who had endeavoirred to provoke his Lordship to fight, a duel, by addressing the following language to him publicly in Regent Street :

"You will not pay me what you owe me: you are a scoundrel, and I only regret that I cannot meet you in St. James's Street to say so. Wherever I meet you I will tell you this."

The Judges, after consulting together, refused to grant the informa- tion "for words."

The Court on Wednesday granted a rule to show cause why the trial of John Minter Hart, for defrauding Mr. Dugdale Astley, should not be removed from the Clerkenwell Sessions to the Old Bailey, or some other court where Mr. Rotch was not to preside as Judge. The ap- plication for the removal was founded upon the affidavit of the prisoner. It referred to the trial of Henry Palmer for the same offence as that for which the applicant was indicted ; and stated, that Mr. Rotch was on intimate teims with Mr. Astley, the prosecutor, and his father-in- law, Sir Thomas Lethbridge; and that, in order to obtain a true bill against Palmer, he had read an Untrue account of the transaction for which the latter was to be tried, from the Satirist newspaper, to the Grand Jury. It also stated, that although Mr. Rotch was subprenaed as, witness for Palmer, he remained in court and presided as Judge after all witnesses had been ordered to withdraw ; and that he suffered the jury to depart from Court for an hour without any person to attend them, before they had delivered their verdict. These were the grounds on which Chief justice Denman granted the rule.

On the same day., Sir James Scarlett applied, on the part of Mr. Park, a gentleman of fortune in Northamptonshire, for leave to file a

criminal information against the Reverend Mr. Tarbuck, the clergy- man, and a magistrate of the parish in which th2 former resided. Sir James stated the following circumstances as the grounds of the appli- cation.

Mr. Park's pleasure-grounds were separated from some land belonging to the Vicar by a sunk fence. His shrubbery also joined an angle of a wall which di-

vided it from the churchyard. It appeared by the affidavit of Mr. Park, that in

the month of January last, he discovered that a painted window in his house had been broken; and on searching the grounds next morning, the marks of footsteps were traced across the Vicar's land, and into his garden ; and from the statement of the shoemaker who made the shoes, there was very little doubt that the Vicar's son had been the person. Mr. Park, however, contented himself with offering a reward for the discovery of the offender ; and it happened soon

after, that the young gentleman was actually discovered breaking Mr. Park's windows. He was then taken before a Magistrate, and punished under the Wilful Trespass Act ; which punishment Mr. Park supposed had engendered feelings of ii-will in the Vicar towards him; far he soon after set up a claim of a right of way through Mr. Park's pleasure-grounds, and threw down a part of the churchyard-wall, for the purpose of makinga road through the shrubbery.

Mr. Park stated that he should resist this claim; and proposed to try it in a court of law, without resorting to any violent measures ; but this proposal was not acceded to by the Vicar, although a great number of the oldest inhabitants of the place stated that they never remembered any road in that direction, and that the grounds had been in their present state for forty years. On the 24th of August, Mr. Tarbuck assembled about three hundred persons in the church-

yard, for the purpose of asserting the right of wag; and made a speech to them, in which he stated that he was provided with pistols, which would be used if anybody resisted, and that he did not care if blood was shed. A ser-

vant of Mr. Park sat upon the wall to warn them off; but he was soon removed; and a mob of people, with the Vicar at their head, entered Mr. Park's grounds,

cut down the trees, and did a great deal of damage, for which some of them were taken before a Magistrate and bound over to appear at the Quarter-ses- sions. After they were liberated, the Vicar met them at a public-house and gave them a supper; he himself sitting at the head of the table, and encourag- ing them in what they had done.

The rule was refused by the Court, on the ground that the defendant ought to be indicted at the Sessions.

Sir John Campbell moved, on behalf of the Earl of Durham, for a criminal information against the printer, publisher, and sole proprietor of the Durham Advertiser, for the libel with which our readers are already acquainted. The affidavit of Lord Durham contradicted in the fullest and most direct manner every allegation contained in it. His Lordship added, "that he verily believed the object of the publisher of suet) a false and calumnious statement was to irritate the pitmen, by making them believe that he was hostile to them and their amusements ; and that it was one of a series of libels of the same nature which had been published against him." 'The' Court granted a rule to show cause. Similar applications were then made against the Standard and the John Bull; awl in these cases also the rules were granted.

In the Bail Court yesterday. Sir James Scarlett applied to Mr. Justiee Littledale for a writ of habeas corpus, to be directed to the keeper of the Norwich Gaol, to bring up Mr. Joseph Reeve, in order that he might be admitted to bail in that court. Mr. Reeve is the person who was committed on a charge of felony by the Magistrates, who inquired into the circumstances attending the wreck of the Earl Wemyss. The present application was grounded apon an affidavit by Mr. Reeve, in Which be asserts, in the most positive terms, his entire innocence of the offences charged against him, and eaters into a minute account and jar.. tiAcatioa, of his conduct with regard to the passengers and their pro- perty on board the smack. Sir James Scarlett said, that the evidence respecting the purloining of MisaRoche's reticule "was such that none but very ignorant and very prejudiced country Magistrates could have given it credence." The habeas corpus was immediately granted, with a certiorari to the Magistrates to return the depositions.' The farther hearing of this case is fixed for Wednesday next.

On Wednesday afternoon, James Gardner, a plasterer, was passing with his wife through Kingston Fair, when he had some words with one of the thimble-ring men ; and it was agreed that the dispute should be settled by a pugilistic contest for a sovereign a side. On Thursday, the parties met near Kingston ; and as Gardner was about to lay down his stake-money, his antagonist, whose name is Williams, ran to the bar of a booth, and seized a large and sharp-pointed carving-knife, which he plunged into Gardner's left side, just below the heart. The poor fellow immediately fell senseless on the ground, heeding profusely. He is-now lying at the Old Harrow. Williams has been committed to Bridewell jail, to await the result of the wound.

It is not a little remarkable, that in the city of Armagh, which has hitherto been regarded as the very concentration of all that is identified with Protestant feeling, fifty pounds have been subscribed to the Tribute, on the sole ground of Mr. O'Connell being a Repealer.— Morning Herald.