In the Court of King's Bench, on Wednesday, Mr. Sergeant

Storku applied for a new tiial in the case of Henslow versus Fawcett, tried at the last Cambridge Assizes, before Lord Abinger, when a verdict with 500/. penalty was given against the defendant, who had endeavoure.1 to bribe a voter to poll for Mr. Knight at the Cambridge election. The principal ground ot the application for the new trial was, that the party attempted to be bribed actually voted against Mr. Knight, though he took .5/. to vote for him. It was contended, that the voterhad not been corrupted, and therefore that the verdict should be set aside. The fol- lowing conversation occurred between Sergeant Storks and the Bench. Lord Denman—" Was there no count stating a contract to give his vote, be- cause those are the words of the statute? " Mr. Sergeant Storks—" No, my Lord ; I will read the words—, that he did corrupt one John Garner, who had a right to vote at the said election, to give his vote at that election for Mr. Knight.'" Lord Denham—" The words of the statute are 'corrupting or procuring an- other to vote.'" Mr. Sergeant Storks would submit, that in a penal action, so highly penal as this action was, nothing was to be inferred, but every thing was to be strictly taken in favour of the defeodant. It was obvious there was a distinction in the two branches of the section. He would not quote as authority any thing frona that very extraordinary judicial tribunal called a Committee of the House of Commons. Mr. Justice Littledule—" Brother Storks, the House is not sitting now, cc else beware." Mr. Sergeant Storks would first take the case of the voter ; and it wag enacted, "that if any person who should be entitled to vote at any election should ask for, or receive, or take, any money, reward, &c. or agree or contract for any money to give his vote, he should be liable to a penalty of 5001., and be disqualified from voting at any future election." In Peckwen Election Cases, it was said that the voter was guilty of bribery if he asked for or received money to induce him to vote. The candidate was guilty of bribery if by reward he corrupted the voter to give his vote. In this case, he submitted that there was no contract : that the party did not procure the other to vote was clear, because he did not vote ; and he was not corrupted to vote, for he never intended to vote.

Lord Denmau—" He might enter into the the agreement without intending to keep it ; then be would be doubly corrupt."

Mr. Justice Pattesen—" It was not put to the Jury whether he did vote or not."

Mr. Sergeant Stolks replied that it was not.

Mr. Justice Littledale—" You say you only endeavoured to corrupt?'

Mr. Sergeant Storks—" Yes ; he failed in the experiment."

Mr. Justice Patteson—" I thought it was proved that he took the money."

Mr. Sergeant Storks—" Yes ; but he might take the money without any corrupt intention. He might take the money with a laugh, and say, Horst completely I have done you.'"

Mr. J:Istice Patteson—" The evidence, I think, is, that he gave him to derstam lie meant to be corrupted, but that, in point of fact, he never intended to be crupted."

Lon: Denham—" He might have thought better of it before he get to the committee-room : he took the money, and the other gave it."

Mr. Sergeant Storks—" But he was not corrupted or procured to vote. I admit that the party took the money."

Mr. Justice Coleridge—" The money is given for the vote, and is accepted for the vote."

Lord Denman—." Corrupting to vote is what is in the mind of the man giving the money."

Mr. Sergeant Storks urged that the Act of Parliament contemplated the thing being completed. Mr. Justice Coleridge—" You say promising, and not intending to perform, is no offence ?"

Mr. Sergeant Storks—" I do, my Lord: the man might receive the money. and not be corrupted Supposing he had refused the money, it cannot be said that that would be within the statute."

Mr. Justice Patteson—" If he did not take the money, but entered into a contract to vote, he would have been liable." Mr. Sergeant Storks contended, that if it was doubtful or equivocal, he ma entitled to the strictest application of the language of the Act. Mr. Justice Coleridge—" Supposing both parties gave money, and he voted for neither ?" Mr. Cergeant Storks then apprehended, upon the words of the statute, he would not be liable.

The Court refused to grant a new oial. Lord Denman said— It was supposed there was a distinction between the offence being committed by the voter and the person who came for the purpose of procuriug a vote by means of a bribe. It seemed to him that distinction was nothing to the pur- itan, but that the act of the person who offered to corrupt the voter was quite a distinct thing from the act of the voter; and the offence was that of con upting a person to give his vote to a particular person. The statute said, that any per- son who should corrupt a voter, by giving a reward, should forfeit 500/. The procuring was one offence, and the corrupting another offence, which seemed to him to rest upon the party giving the bribe. The acceptance of the money was ia melt' a promise to vote ; anti II would be confounding all the objects of the statute, if they were to say that the fact of the party breaking the promise afterwards could make the man less guilty for giving the bribe. When the one gave the 5/., and the other took it, the whole offence wa mode out; and he saw no ground for distuibing the verdict.

Justices Littledale, Patteson, and Coleridge, fully concurred with Lord Denman.

An action brought by Mr. Nugee, the fashionable tailor in St. James's Street, against Mr. Grant, nephew of Sir Colquhoun Grant, was tried in the Bail Court on Thursday. The ground of the action was the non-payment by the defendant of a bill for clothes furnished him in the summer of 1832, amounting to 781. 16s. W. Mr. Grunt was under age when the clothes were bought, and son of a surgeon at Burhatnpoore it' the East Indies. Among the items in the bill, were charges of twelve guineas for a blue cloth cloak, including in the charge one guinea for rich neck lines and tassels ; two pounds fourteen shillings a pair

for trousers ; six guinctis for each coat, &c. ; and it appeared that in the course of six months the plaintiff bad ordered and received six coats, seven waistcoats, and ten pair of trousers. Mr. Stultz and Mr. Story, also fashionable tailors, proved that the charges were rather below than above the mark. Mr. Justice Williams said, that the first Duke in the land would not have thought of ordering such a quantity of clothes, in so short a time, and at such prices, and the Jury by their verdict cut down the tailor's bill from 78/. to .50/.

At the Mansionhouse, on Saturday, Christopher Charles Foster was finally committed for trial on a charge of being principally engaged in the late extensive forgeries in the City; and A. J. Murphy was held to bail to take his trial, if called on, as accessory to the same offences.

On Thursday, Dr. William Brewer, and Mr. Richard Matthews, a medical student, were bound over to keep the peace towards each other; as it appeared from the evidence of Mr. Matthews's brother, that they intended to settle sonic • quarrel by fighting a duel. The terms of a letter addressed by Dr. Brewer to Mr. Matthews sounded, in the elegant phraseology of Lord Winchester, " very like slugs in a sawpit." it was proposed by Mr. Matthews, that they should fight with pistols across a three-foot table; whereupon Lord Winchester repeated his vvitticisni about "slugs in a sawpit." The whole affair seems to have been perfectly contemptible.

At the Hatton Garden Office, on Monday, Mr. Edward Alderman, a coachmaker at Battle Bridge, was charged with having tendered a counterfeit half-sovereign at a tavern in Holborn. He had been locked up at the Station-liou,e the greater part of the previous night, and was attended at the office by a number of his friends. Mr. Alderman said in his defence, that the half-sovereign was a good one, and that he had taken it on the previous Saturday, from Mr. Davies, a glass-dealer, on Saffron Hill. Mr. Bennett looked at the half-sovereign, and said that it certainly had a queer sound, and appeared small, but it was evidently pure gold, and not a gilt sixpence, or counterfeit. Mr. Laing examined it also, and concurred with Mr. Bennett ; and he ordered the Clerk to weigh it in the office scales against another half-sovereign. The Clerk did so; and found it to be exact weight ; and every body in Court was satisfied that it was a good half-sovereign, but felt astonished and anxious to know why the Mint should issue half-sovereigns so widely different in size and sound from each other. Mr. Davies, the glass-dealer, here stepped forward, and said that he knew Mr. Alderman to be a re- spectable tradesman, and he had paid him the half.sovereign on Satur- day night in the course of business. It was a good half-sovereign, and he received it from another tradesman. Mr. Laing said that the half- sovereign was evidently a good one ; and the prisoner was discharged. He ordered the half-sovereign to be returned to him. Mr. Alderman complained of the hardship of having been given into custody on such a charge, and imprisoned ; and on quitting the office with his friends, he expressed his determination of proceeding instantly to his solicitor to commence legal proceedings against his prosecutors.

On Thursday, three desperate looking men, named Mack, Gibbs, and Williams, were brought to this Office, charged with assaulting the Police. It was stated in evidence against them, that they refused ad- mittance to some policemen who wished to search the house they occupied in Compton Place, St. Pancras, for stolen property ; and not only fastened their doors, hut, with some accomplices, got on the roofs of the houses, and poured tiles, parapet-stones, and rubbish of all sorts, on the men below. They also fired blunderbusses and pistols at the Police, though without effect. A large body of the Police assembled, well armed ; and, after a struggle, succeeded in securing the prisoners. They were sentenced, Mack to two months', Gibbs and Waller to six weeks' imprisonment. Some of the Police were severely bruised by the stones and bricks hurled at them.

At the Queen Square Office, on Monday, Samuel Mitchell, a per- son who has been employed for several years past as a messenger at the Treasury with a salary, of 1.50/. a year, was committed to prison, on a charge of stealing Parliamentary Reports, and other books, paper, inkstand-, &c. from the Treasury.

At the Lambeth Street Office, yesterday, Thomas Wright, a private in the Scots Fusileer Guards, was fined one shilling and sixpence, the price of a glass he had broken, and delivered over to the military autho- rities by the Magistrates, for being intoxicated, and creating disturbance in East Smithfield. He drew his bayonet, and flourished it about, swearing that he would stab any one who interfered. One of his comrades was alto drunk and riotous, but the prisoner was the worst. A sergeant, who attended to hear the charge, said the man was a disor- derly character. [Sir Ilenty HARDINGE insists upon the propriety of trusting men, known to be turbulent and intemperate, with side-arms

in the streets. But will our Representatives submit to "lave the lives of their peaceable constituents endangered, merely to please military martinete ?]