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

IN BE 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 sailor.
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 question
turned on the jurisdiction over a foreigner in a British
ship, who had committed an offence against English
laws, by bringing him within the jurisdiction of the
English courts for trial.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, for the prisoner, urged that
a foreigner was not liable for an offence 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.
g After hearing Mr. Weisby, in support of the con-
viotiop,
The Court deferred judgment.
The case of Settler was under consideration when our
despatch left.

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

are stated at 439/. ; doubtful,
The balance sheet shows a capital of 12/, in January,
1856, and bankrupt now owes 4,8531. The good debts
130/. ; and surplus property in the hands of creditors
about 9001. 579/. ; property given up,

Mr. Sheffield, for the assignees, did not object to the
bankrupt
having an immediate certificate of the second
class, which was granted, and on the application of Mr.
Moss, for the bankrupt, the certificate fees were
returned,

IN RI STUBBS•
The certificate of this bankrupt, a corn dealer at
Andover, Was suspended for six months for excessive
expenditure.

17T01he accounts by Mr. Hoyles shows Dr. 7001. ; assets,

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant.)

THE BURGLARY AND PIEEALARIL 0031FANY.—NEWBOLD
optician,V. BURGESS AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is an
&c., to recover compensation 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, Sze.
Mr. W. Pearce, in the absence of Mr. Petersdorff,
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. James for Bur.
gess, and Mr. Robinson for Simmends.
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-
bustion. 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-
ried on business in Royal Exchange-buildings, the latter
undertook to find a capitalist and to have the apparatus
exhibited at his shop, On,
as he alleged, the condition
that his name should be inserted in the patent to secure
him from any txpeases 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-
gess to the other defendant, who advanced the
money to take out the patent ; and afterwards pre-
liminary steps were taken for forming
a Company,
and offices were taken in the Poultry for that purpose.
From some cause, however, the project was not
carried out; but it is now understood that all diffi-
culties in that respect were removed ; but as plaintiff's
right to be joined in the patent, or to be connected
with the company was disputed, he brought the pre-
sent action on the breach of contract, and on other
counts for remuneration for services rendered.
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
recognised the plaintiff's claim.
After long his lordship held that, suppos-
ing the
eagreement to be proved, the plaintiff could not
v
on the first count, as the company had not been
formed,reeor lo
but the plaintiff was entitled to some remunera-
tion for services rendered. It was clear that he had
introduced the parties to each other, and that he had
done other works ; one matter more deserved attention,
if the jury were satisfied, from the plaintiff's evidence,
that it was a fact that it was his own act, through alte-
ration ,
which was very important,
of an addition to the prospectus, that the invention
w
and appeared to have been overlooked. The questions,
therefore, app
icbaebiloeraelsthoet
jousrhyi
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 54
113 `1