The Sun.
London, England, 1858-01-23 00:00:00

THE CONVICT MELLOR.

The prisoner was tried at the last Liverpool winter
assizes, before Mr. Justice Wighttnan, for murder, was
mvicted, and sentenced to death. On the fthlow.
ing day it was discovered that a wrong juryman went
into the box, and was sworn by nfatake. It was hel I
for the prisoner that he bad lost hie right of challenge,
and bad not been properly convicted.

Mr. Fearnley was heard in support of the objection,
and Mr. Sowler in support of the conviction.
Lord Campbcll said he thought tke Court bad not
jurisdiction in the ease. The act gave them power to
con ider points of law reserved on the trial. Ws was
not a point of law on the trial, but a mistake discovered
after. It was a fact that should be brought before
the Court on a writ of error.
Judgment deferred.

IN RE BENITO LOPEZ.
The prisoner, a sailor, was tried at the last winter
assizes at Exeter, before Mr. Justice Crompton, and
convicted of having unlawfully wounded another sailcr
an Englishman, while on the high seas. The prisoner
and the prosecutor were in a British ship, on a voyage
from the coast of Africa to London, and the cpiet•tion
turned on the jurisdiction over a foreigner in a British
ship, who had committed an ( ffince against English
laws, by bringing him within the julisdic:don of the
English courts for trial.

Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, for the prisoner, urged that
a foreigner was not liable for an offeaco against the
English laws, committed within the jurisdiction of the
Admiralty, even if a qualified allegiance were created
by the party going on board a British ship as one of
the crew or passenger in such vessel.
riss After hearirg Mr. Welsby, in support of the con-
viction,
The Court affirmed the conviction.

THE QUEEN V. BATTLER.
In this case Sattler was convicted and left for
execution for the murder of Tbain the detective. The
Court decided,!without going into the question of legal
arrest, that the prisoner was guilty of murder, and bad
been rightly convicted.
Conviction affirmed.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN IU T. B. DANIEL.
This was an application for certificate by the Lack
rupt, who had carried on buEiness as an ironmonger at
Poplar.

13T01h.e; baauldanscuervalhueset shows a capital of 121. in January,
the assignees, 1856, and bankrupt now owes 4,853/. The good debts
are stated at 4391. ; doubtful
579/. ; property given up,
about 900/.
Mr. Sheffield, for property
did not object to the
bankrupt having an immediate certificate of the second
class, which wai granted, and on the application of Mr.
the h.nds of creditors
Moss, for the bankrupt, the certificate fees were
returned.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
(Before the C00:1111011 St`rgta" ) THE DDRGLA.RY AND Pr..
ALARM COMPANY•—NEWBOLD

V.
13"(4886 AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is an
optician, &e., to recovecomensation for breach of
contract on the part of the defendants, Messrs. Burgess
and Simmonds, Who
are the patentees of an invention
brought out for the prevention of burglary and fire in
buildings and ships, &c,
Mr. W. Pearce, in the absence of Mr. Petersdorff,
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. James for Bur-
gess, and Mr. Robinson for Sitnrnonds.
The facts of the case were these. Burgess was the
inventor of an apparatus, by
which any attempt at
burglary would be discovered immediately, and the
precise spot at which the attempt was made indicated.
It could also be applied as an alarum in case of fire in
houses, or on board ships in cases of spontaneous com-
e buetion. The apparatus was exhibited at the Great
Exhibition, and attracted much attention. Burgess,
however, was not in a position to take out a patent, and
becoming acquainted with the plaintiff,
who then car-
tied on business in Royal Exchange-buildings, the latter
undertook to find a capitalist and to have the apparatus
exhibited at his skop, on, as he alleged, the condition
that his name should be inserted in the patent to secure
him from any expenses he might incur, and also that in
the event of a company being formed, he should hold a
prominent appointment under it. In
pursuance of
this arrangement, he caused advertisements to be in-
serted in the paper., and ultimately introduced Bur-
gees to the other defendant, who advanced the
; and afterwards pre-
liminary steps were taken for forming a Company,
ncetrsarcetn,
and offices were taken in the Poultry for that purpose.
money to take out the patent r
From some cause, however, the project Ras not
carried out; but it is now understood that all diffi-
dered.
kik brought the pre-
sent sin that respect were removed ; but as plaintiff's
rpousfteerdo,,,i
right to be joined in the patent, or to be connected
and on other
Burgess denied that he had ever made such an
agreement as that spoken of by the plaintiff, and on
the part of Simmonds, it was urged that he had never
seint
ti
counts action
chtfeoi or
company
al: atitnuhyeer awtbiaroesnadcfhi os
recognised the plaintiff's claim,
After long arguments, his lordship held that, suppos- '
iog the agreement to be proved, the plaintiff could not
recover on the first count, as the company had elli been
formed, but the plaintiff was entitled to Bowe rethunera.
tion for services rendered. It was clear thatie bad
introduced the parties to each other, and that, hg„had.
dune other works ; one matter more deserved attention,
if the jury were satisfied, from the plaintiff's evidence,
that it was a fact that it wan his own act, through alte-
ration of au addition to the prospectus, that the invention
was applicable also to ship, which was very important,
and appeared to have been overlooked. Tne questions,
therefore, bef,re the jury were, whether Simmonds had
recognised the services of the plaintiff, for it was a joint
action, and if he had, what would be a fair
remuneration.
The jury consulted for some time, and then gave a ,
verdict for 51.