In the Bail Court of the Queen's Bench, on Monday,

application was made for a writ of habeas corpus to bring up William Baines, who had been committed to Leicester Gaol for non-payment of Church-rates. The objections urged against the commitment, by Mr. M. D. Hill, who appeared on behalf of Mr. Baines, were of a technical kind. The writ was granted.

In the same Court, Sir Frederick Pollock applied for a rule calling upon the Directors of the Grand Junction Railway to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue, commanding them to comply with the provisions of the Act of Parliament 3 Victoria, c. 49, sec. 20, which enacts, " that the charges by the said acts authorized to be made for the carriage of goods, passengers, &e. to be conveyed by the said company, shall be at all times charged equally and after the same rate per mile, or per ton per mile, in respect of all passengers and goods on carriages of a like description conveyed or propelled by a like carriage or engine, passing on the same portion of the line only, and under the same circumstances; and no reduction or advance hi any charge for conveyance by the said company, or for the use of any locomotive power to be supplied by them, shall be made, either directly or indirectly,

in favour of or against any particular company or person travelling upon or using the same portion of the said railway under the circumstances as afore- said." The object of the application was stated to be to try the question whether the Directors of the Grand Junction Railway Company had a right by any arrangement which they might privately cuter into to contravene the act of Parliament, and in substance to exclude Messrs. Pickford and Co., the carriers, front carrying on their business. Sir Frederick Pollock said it would appear from the affidavits on which he

founded his motion, that the Directors of the Grand Junction Railway Company had openly avowed, " that their object was to drive all

carriers from the railway ; that the Company were carriers themselves,

and no other carriers were wanted." Every Railway Act contained a clause apparently compelling the Directors to permit any persons to

have their own locomotive engines, carriages, &c. placed on the railroad if they thought proper ; but as locomotive engines must stop somewhere to obtain a fresh supply of water, coals, &c., and as the clauses in the Railway Acts contained no provision for compelling the Directors to supply coals, water, &c. on the line, they were a perfect dead letter. The Directors of the Grand Junction Railway allowed the gratuitous use of a certain portion of their line to Messrs. Horne and Chaplin, the carriers ; but refused to allow Messrs. Pickford and Co. to send goods by that line, unless they paid a certain sum of money, which amounted

to an additional expense of about 5!. per day. The object of the Rail- way Companies in acting in this manner to one of the principal carriers in the country, was stated by Sir F. Pollock to be the monopoly of the conveyance of goods as well as of passengers.—Mr. Justice Patteson granted a rule to show cause.

A rule for a criminal information against Mr. Alaric Watts, the pub- lisher of the United Service Gazette, was granted in the Bail Court oa. Saturday, for a libel on Lieutenant George Hart. The libel charged Lieutenant Hart, who is the editor and proprietor of a new Army List, with having absented himself from his service in India, on fri- volous pretences, and with having left the post of danger and honour to his brother officers.

In the Arches Court, on Wednesday, Sir IL Jenner pronounced judgment in the case of Lockwood versus Lockwood,—a suit by Lady Julia Lockwood against her husband for divorce, on the ground of cruelty. The cause was originally brought in the Consistory Court, where Dr. Lushington pronounced a sentence of divorce. From that de- cision the husband appealed. Sir H. Jenner stated the particulars of the case. He said the Court considered that Mr. Lockwood's conduct to his wife on several occasions unmounted to legal cruelty. Such was his behas

1/ lour towards Lady Julia at Lady A ldborough's, in dragging her up stairs, which no levity on her part or suspicions on his could possibly justify. In 1834 another act of cruelty was committed at Paris it was alleged

that, having agreed to have separate rooms, Mr. Lockwood had entered into Lady Julia's chamber, and there kicked and ill-used her : there was no direct proof of the extent of violence, but the evidence was suffi- cient, tinder the circumstances, to establish legal cruelty. At Ver- sailles it was alleged he ran after Lady Julia with a stick, and threatened to run it down her throat; which so frightened her that she jnmped out of window ; and being reproached for such conduct, he

replied that he "would drag her out of the room by the scruff of her neck." At this time, at any rate, there was no imputation on her

character—nothing in her behaviour to justify, or even to extenuate such harshness and cruely. Articles of separation were shortly after this drawn up between the parties, and a hope was entertained by their friends that their disputes and disagreements would have been settled without referring to a legal process. These negotiations, however, failed ; and Mr. Lock wood subsequently took forcible possession of Lady

Julia's residence at Tunbridge Wells, and compelled her to seek the protection of the law. The letters found iu the possession of Lady Julia, written by a certain gentleman, though not leading to the neces-

sary conclusion of aim improper familiarity, might to have received a fuller and more satisfactory explanation. They could not, however,

hay. had any effect neon the conduct of Mr. Lockwood, as they were not discovered by him until after such conduct had been adopted. On the whole, the Court thought the decision of the Court below was a sound one. Sir H. Jenner accordingly affirmed the deeisiou of the inferior Court, and condemned Mr. Lockwood in the costs.