Yesterday a meeting took place on Drumcondra-road, between James Corry, Esq., of Lurgan-street, and —— Newburgh, Esq., in consequence of a dispute, and, as alleged, the provocation of a blow given by the latter to the former. The latter gentleman was accompanied on the ground by Captain Warring of the 24th Dragoons, as his second; the other by Mr. Weir, one of the attorneys. Having taken their ground, the signal was given to fire. Mr. Corry’s pistol went off without effect, Mr. Newburgh’s missed fire. He was preparing to fire it afterwards, when his second called to him, telling him, the snap in duelling was considered as a fire. Both gentlemen were then provided with other pistols, and received the signal to fire again, which they did, and Mr. Newburgh was shot through the heart and expired. Mr. Newburgh was the only son of Broghill Newburgh, of the county of Cavan, Esq. of an ancient family, and heir-apparent to an estate of 5000_l._ per annum. Mr. Corry is an élève of the Speaker of the House of Commons, by whom he was placed in the lucrative situation of clerk to the Linen Board; a place which was enjoyed by his father, who was also a great favourite with Mr. Foster. The deceased was upwards of thirty years of age, and married to the daughter of Mr. Camac, an East India gentleman, with a fortune of 30,000_l._ He was related to Lord Enniskillen, Lord Erne, Lord Gosford, and some other of the best families in Ireland. Mr. Corry, who is some years younger, is a young gentleman of amiable and inoffensive manners. BETWEEN MR. P. HAMILTON AND MR. G. I. EAKER. January, 1802. A duel took place at New York, between Mr. P. Hamilton, son of General Alexander Hamilton, and Mr. G. I. Eaker; in which, at the first fire, Mr. Hamilton was shot through the body. He languished until the next day, when he died. BETWEEN WM. HUNTER, ESQ. AND MR. DAVID MITCHELL. August, 1802. At Savannah, William Hunter, Esq., fell in a duel with Mr. David Mitchell. The dispute had its origin in July last, in the county court, to the jury of which Mr. Hunter was foreman, in a cause in which Mitchell was counsel. During the trial, it appearing to Mr. Hunter that the examination of the evidence was not conducted by the counsel with that impartiality which justice required, he addressed a few words to the court, when Mitchell got up and observed, that Mr. Hunter was very officious on the occasion. Mr. Hunter replied, that the officiousness of jurymen was not to be compared with the impertinence of some attorneys.