Bombay Supreme Court.
.*v wu.oa rscrven rny mne tiourt aurmqg tnle trial of lieutenant . RS. Fenviick, and moved in arest of judgmcnt,were- 1st. Whether the jurisdiction was proved as laid in the indict- ment, i. e. whether the murder had been committed within the tetrtorZ of a native Prince in Inidia, in alliance with the Govern. ment ot Bombay. 23. Whether there was evidence to prove Lieutenant Fenwick a 3it. uprethcr as to this indictmfy'ntj the Court hal jurisdictiola under the 26th Oeo. lM. cap. 57 and 29. wk4ich makes the servants of the Comrlpany, aUnd all other of Ilk Dajesty's subjects, resident in hdia, amenable to the Courts of Oyer and Terminer, and Gao( De1i,e.y, in thd lBrifish uettlemetits in In-dig, for, murdcrs,- felonies,, &c., done by them, in any of' the cotntries orparta of Asia, Africa, or America, beyond the Cape of tSood Hope, to the Straits of Magcl. Ian, within the limits of the exclusive tratle nf the ssad'Company. As to the firt point, the Court hell that there tras no lesal. and admissible eviAence that the rnurder hltd becnf committed within the territories of a native prince, in alliance with .the 'Govemment of Bombav. The treaty of allinnce with the 'uicowarwasiiid to bein vriting, and that there could be other evidence of that treaty admitted, except the treatp itself, which had not been produced, and the evi. dence was not sufficient to prove that the Rajah- of Loonawarra was in allianceat all with the G(overnment. As to the second point, the Court did not think it necessary to give any formal decision, but intimated an opinion that it consider. cd all commissioned officers of the Company as having King's corn- missions, and therefore as his MIajesty's subjects. As to the third point, the neecsary averrments were not in the in. dictment. The Court therefore decided, that Lieutenant Fenwick should bc discharged, but took time to consider the mode in which that should be done. BOMDA vSUPRET CO UR T. _____LIBUTENANT FENWICK'S CASE.