laiv anis SItttice.

DUKE AND DUCHESS OF RICIDIOND.—Criminal informations seem to be the order of the day. On Monday, the Attorney-General moved for one against the Court Journal, the Observer, the John Bull, and the Morning Post, for a libel on the Duke of Richmond. The libel stated that the Duchess of Richmond had eloped with a Captain in the Army : it appeared in the Court Journal of the 28th January, was copied by the Observer and John Bull of the next day, and by the Morning Post of the following Monday.

MR. HAWKINS.—On Tuesday, Mr. Holt applied for a criminal in- formation against the Bedford Chronicle and the Ballot, for a libel on a Mr. Hawkins, a magistrate of Harpenden, Herts. The libel related to certain alleged tyrannical proceedings towards a pauper named Wells; it was published in the Bedford Chronicle, and copied by the Ballot.

DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.--On Wednesday, Sir Charles Wetherell ap- plied for an information on the behalf of no less a personage than the Duke of Cumberland, against a bookseller of the Strand named Philips, for a gross and revolting libel respecting the much-talked-of case of Sellis, the Duke's valet, who cut his throat on the 31st of May 1810, after an attempt, the motives to which were never well made out, to murder his master. Sir Charles read the libel : it is of great length, forming 10 or 12 pages of an octavo volume of 395 pages, which is sold by Mr. Philips at the modest price of one guinea. Sir Charles put in affidavits by his Royal Highness; by Mr. Neale, who was one of his valets at the time of Sellis's death; and by Mr. Adam, the Coroner,—severally negativing the charges set forth and insinuated in the libel, of which the murder of Sellis by the Duke cannot be called the greatest. Lord Tenterden, previous to granting the rule, asked how the libel was to be brought home to Philips. Sir Charles offered the affidavit of two persons who had gone to the Satirist office (334, Strand), for the purpose of buying the book in which the libel appeared. Mr. Philips being called from an inner room, made his appearance at the counter, and produced the volume in question. He described himself as of 334, Strand. A third cepy was purchased at 13, Wellington Street; and there also the seller was the same Mr. Philips. , The expediency, though not the justice of this prosecution, seems very questionable. If the libel published by Philips had possessed the merit of originality, we should have said that his Royal Highness could not well avoid noticing it as it deserved; but, seeing that it is merely the revival of an old story, perhaps it would have been as well to hesitate before giving to it the notoriety which is probably the one thing most desired by its author. There are some charges, the very necessity of denying which is a sort of imputation on a man's character. In what light was the honour of the Duke of Cumberland viewed by his advisers, when they counselled him to make an oath that he had not been guilty of the most atrocious offences ? And what good purpose could such a denial serve ? If there be any one in the kingdom so credulous as to believe that the Duke is a murderer and worse, will he be convinced of his error by the oath of the supposed criminal? The scandalous tale refutes itself; for it states that the Duke murdered Sellis, the only witness of his crimes, or had him murdered, in order to get rid of his evidence ; but (as a contemporary has remarked) if the only evidence was cut off, how were the facts now detailed discovered?

MR. 1VIABERLY.—This gentleman was finally examined on Thursday, before Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque. A long catechisingtook place respecting the accuracy of a sum of 150,0001., stated as the amount of Mr. Maberly's balance in 18261 The object of the questions, which were put by Mr. Gordon, solicitor to the fiat, was to elicit whether, by carrying the accounts farther back, this balance might not be affected-. Mr. Maberly denied that he had any documents from which to frame an account anterior to that which he had already given. Mr. Gordon—. We think that Mr. Maberly, by the help of the pass-books we have got, and hisown recollection. might be able to show the disposition of his funds in 1825 and 1826. We do not wish him to go Esther back. In accounting for several large sums, all he said in his last examination was, that he had applied them to general pur- poses. I think that is too vague for the creditors to be satisfied with."

Mr. Maberly—" But the books support the answer, and give you particulars. You had Mr. Masterman before you, and could have examined him, had you pleased, upon any point connected with my estate." Mr. Gordon—" Mr. Masterman's examination is on the table, and he only says that all time transactions are entered in t he books." Mr. Maberly—" And what would you have besides ?"

Mr. Gordon—" Mr. Bannatyne, one of the creditors' assignees, says he thinks there would be no difficulty in making out such an account as we wish to gave." Mr. Maberly—. I defy any accountant in London to do so. I appeal to Mr. noshes (the Official Assignee) to say whether it be possible."

Mr. Bannatyne—" The banker's book only shows that so much money has been paid by the banker, but does not show how it was applied." Mr. Maberly—" I have always been ready to explain how it was applied. Why did you not say you were dissatisfied? Yesterday you said you were satisfied." Mr. liannatyne—" I had looked over the bazaar accounts, and said I was satisfied with them. I have not looked at these accounts before now." Mr. Maberly—" I am sorry that you are not satisfied: the accounts are as accurate as accounts can be. There is not the mistake of a farthing in them." Mr. Gordon—" Do the pass-books furnish you with means of giving us particulars ?" Mr. Maberly—" If I were to recollect half or even two-thirds of the purposes to which the sums there shown were appropriated, I could not give an accurate account. I am willing to do all I can, but Mr. Gordon will be satisfied with nothing."

Mr. Gordon was at length called on by the Commissioner to specify some of the particulars excepted to. Mr. Gordon—" We find in one of the bankers' books, under the date of the 17th of March 1525, the sum of 20,0001., and on the following day of 10,000/., with the letters 5I. P. marked against each. Mr. Maberly, when last examined upon this book, said. that he believed the inference to be drawn from these items was. that he was under liabilities to Masterman's to that extent." Mr. Maberly—" Mr. Gordon is dissatisfied because I did not swear to this fact posi- tively; but as he has examined Mr. Masterman, he had an opportunity of checking me if I stated any thing that was not correct." Mr. Gordon—" having stated in your former examination, that you were guided by your own discretion, together with yonr knowledge of the circumstances, in ascertaining the particular accounts to which the items now appearing in the ledger should be placed, will not the same discretion and knowledge of circumstances enable you to ascertain the particular accounts to which the large items appearing in the pass-books for the years 1825 and 1026 ought to be placed?" Mr. Maberly—" No; the former question alluded to the cash-books. from which I could do what I stated I had done; but from the pass-book I could make up no such account." Tice Commissioner—" What item, Mr.G ordon, is there in sheet B that is in dispute?" Mr. Gordon—" I cannot say that there is any particular item in dispute, but there are several points in which I wish for explanation. There is 14,0001. set down as owing to Mr. Bailey, but I should like to see it snore clearly explained."

Mr. Maberly —" It is as plain as noon-day upon the face of the books. I am very sorry if you do not understand them ; but Mr. Freslifield, if you wish it, can give yon every particular upon this subject." Mr. Belcher—" I believe that Mr. Gordon wishes to know how the debt accrued." Mr. Maberly—" It is perfectly in my recollection, and I can state it in a moment, if Mr. Gordon wishes it." The Commissioner—" Why, Mr. Gordon, you cannot have better proof of the money having been due in 1826, when you positively find that it was afterwards paid." Mr. Gordon—" On account of Mr. Maberly's respectability, we must admit this, but more would be expected from a person moving in a different sphere of life." The Commissioner—" Do you mean to say, then, that 14,0001. was not due to Mr. Bailey ?" Mr. Gordon—. I certainly cannot say that." Mr. Maberly Mr. Freshfield knows the whole particulars of my transactions with Mr. Bailey, and can verify that item if it be necessary." The Commissioner—" Can you doubt the truth of the assertion that 12,00W. was due to Mr. Bailey?"

Mr. Gordon—" I am not disposed to doubt the truth of what Mr. Maberly states in this formal manner."

Mr. Gordon having again insisted that it was necessary to look into the accounts prior to 1826, and that if Mr. Maberly could not, the creditors must— The Commissioner said—" it is contended by Mr. Maberly, that the 31st December 1826 is such. a starting-point, and that there was at that period an ascertained ba- lance of 150,0001.; so that the accounts may safely be commenced from that period.. Since that was stated, we have had an adjournment, and an opportunity of examining this sheet B; but nothing has appeared to make me think that the truth of the state- ment it contains has been at all shaken. The Official Assignee has investigated into this subject, and his impression is, that this sheet is verified. You can. however, have his opinion:'

Mr. Beleber--" It is most completely verified."

The Commissioner—" Such being the case, and the creditors' assignees whom I have called usmn to state any specific objection they may have to this balance-sheet not having done so, I must declare that I am at present satisfied that 160,00W. was the ascertained balance on the 31st December 1826; and that, therefore, it is convenient Ms accounts should commence at that time."

Mr.. Gordon afterwards pursued the examination for several hours. It required great labour and much time, the report says, to impress suf- ficiently on the learned gentleman, that a bill of 5,000/. ten times re- newed and ten times entered on both sides of a merchant's ledger, was not 50,000/. but .5,000/. still. Mr. Fonblanque having at length sug- gested that what remained further to be elicited could be easily ob- tained at a private meeting—

Mr. Gordon said, that this being the last examination, the creditors would, afterwards.; have no hold upon Mr. Maberly, who might not think proper to attend to give them that information they might be desirous of having. The Commissioner—" I cannot presume that Mr. Maberly will not do his duty." Mr. Gordon" Bat Mr. Maberly may hereafter think it his duty to be attending is the affairs of the elate instead of attending to the convenience of two or three individuate here." Mr. Maberly—. I am aware of the privilege I possess, but privilege is a delicate thing. I have never used mine, and do not intend. An attempt was made at the last

private examination to induce =A° moke a bargain, with my creditors not to use my .privilege. but that was needless."

The Commissioner= It is not the privilege of the individual, but of the public. and -cannot be made a matter of oargain."

Mr. Maberly—" So I should think, Sir." The Commissioner—" I am not aware that a member of Parliament possesses any privileges to prevent his creditors demanding the same full account from him as from :any other person."

Mr. Moberly—" Whatever my privileges may be, I will not use them."

The Commissioner—"That is, that you will at all times give the Assignees every assistance that you can." Mr. Maberly—" At all times that I can." The Commissioner—" I mean, at all reasonable times ; but assignees have a right to command a very considerable portion of time and attendance from bankrupts." Mr. Maberly—" They have bad that from me, and at a great expense, which I have no means of paying."

It may be recollected, that Mr. Maberly's house took fire some time .ago. Mr. Gordon at the close of his examination observed, that it had been reported, in consequence of an accidental fire taking place at Mr. Maberly's house, in John Street, Berkeley Square, on the 28th of Ja- nuary, that he had been engaged in burning. Parliamentary and other papers, from which some persons had drawn improper inferences.

Mr. Maberly—" I am perfectly ready to answer any questions you may put to me." Mr. Gordon—" Is that report true or false?"

Mr. Maberly—" False. The fire broke out while I was in the City ; and I appre- hend that it was occasioned, it being an old house, by one of the beams running under the hearth of the chimney. It was the opinion of the firemen who examined the place, that it might have been on fire for weeks. Mr. Belcher saw it, and can perhaps say the same."

Mr. Belcher—" It certainly had that appearance."

The Commissioner—" Did you burn any books, papers, or documents relating to the -estate?"

Dlr. Maberly—" I did not."

The examination closed at half-past six.

A case of assault, of rather an extraordinary character, was tried at the Middlesex Sessions on Wednesday. The prosecutor was the eldest son of Sir William Twysden, of Roydon Hall, Kent. Two men, named Biggenden and Pattisden, were the defendants. In March 1831, the prosecutor married a widow lady of property. A difference arose between them a few days after the wedding, and a separation was the consequence. He had instituted proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court, it appeared, for restitution of conjugal rights ; and proceedings had been instituted against him for adultery. He was acquainted with a lady named Johnson, of Knutsford Place, Bryanstone Square. He went there on the 16th of February, at eleven o'clock, p.m., and re- mained there until an hour after midnight. When he was about to leave the house, one of the two defendants, who are tenants of his wife's father, and who had been previously dodging him, was in the and offered to open the door,—a politeness which he declined. An altercation ensued ; and the consequence was, that vi et annis lie was thrust into the parlour, and forcibly detained. He resisted as much as he could, but the force was overwhelming, and lie received various bruises and contusions. Mrs. Johnson came down and interfered ; and he fled to her apartments for refuge, his face and nose bleeding pro- fusely. The defendants told him that they were officers, and ;risked to identify his person ; but they showed no warrant, nor had they the shadow of a pretence for a charge. His hat was detained for a consi- derable time, and it was not returned until the policemen came in. In the course of the affray, one of the defendants tripped him up, and he fell on the pavement.

In his cross-examination, Mr. Twysden said he was an officer in the Army, and formerly aide-de-camp to the late Sir John Moore. He was married in February 1830, and lived with his wife till July. On the Sunday after the nuptials, from some cause or other, she proposed a separation. During the time of their cohabitation, they lived at St. Vincent's, near Town Mailing, in Kent. During that period, he was frequently in town, and on one occasion attended ten days as a witness on a trial. He believed that his acquaintance Mrs. Johnson was a single lady; but he was not in the habit of making particular inquiry into these matters.

It appears that when Captain Twysden was engaged with Biggenden and his companion, Mrs. Johnson came to his rescue : she was in her shift. It was also stated that two other parties, a Mr. and Mrs. Hornblower, were there, and that Mrs. Johnson gave Mrs. Hornblower a black eye. Mrs. Johnson explained the shift—

As soon as the Captain left, she went into herbed-room, and stripped for the night. Rearing a noise, she opened the door, when she heard the cry of murder. She threw a . shawl over her night-clothes, and ran down ; when she found Mr. Twysden streaming with blood.

She denied the black eye— "when she interfered, she did all for the prosecutor that a gentlewoman could do. If Mrs. Hornblower had a black eye, it was because she ran bang up against a candlestick ; her fist never caused it."

The two tenants were fined 251. each.

It has been recently decided by the Justices in Sessions, that an in- solvent, after his discharge, cannot require his apprentice to continue to serve him.