The Sun.
London, England, 1853-10-10 00:00:00

kiss, therefore you must pay for that. You had better
settle for the kiss, and be more careful for the future.
The complainant consented to receive 55., and the man
way dYschar,ed on payment of that sum.
Sara -.Lio/r/cr, a chandler's shop-keeper, was sum-
moned having cut and defaced a genuine sixpence,
and unlawfully refusing to receive the same at the rate
it was coined for.

Ellen Enuis, the complainant, statel that she went
into defendant's shop on Wednesday, and tendered a
good sixpence to her in payment of some trifling article.
The defendant bent and defaced it and afterwards re-
fused to take it. Complainant here handed the coin for
his worship's inspection, when

.
Mr. Combe said that she had acted unlawfully in de-
facing the sixpence as well as in refusing to take it.
The coin was genuine, and although worn, it was a legal
tender, and she had no right to bend it in that manner.
He should order her to pay sixpence and two shillings
costs.

Mrs. Holder said she was unacquainted with the law,
and that for the future she should neither deface nor
refuse to take good and lawful money.

LAMBETH. A fashionably-dressed Frenchman,
who gave the name of Lejard Challind, applied to Mr.
Elliott for some redress against a person who had made
an illegal seizure, and carried away a quantity of his
property.
The applicant, in broken English, stated that he had
engaged an oven and a shop from a person named Do-
novan, at 12s. a week, and at the expiration of the first
week, and without giving him the slightest notice of his
intention, the landlord put in a distraint for the rent,
and swept away his property, consisting of bread, scales,
and weights, and refused to give them back.
• Winsley, the broker put in, said the articles seized
were perfectly worthless, and not at all adequate to cover
the amount of debt, much more costs, and he should wil-
lingly give them up upon the payment of both. The prin-
cipal article was bread, consisting of 95 small loaves,
manufactured from some composition, and totally un-
saleable and unfit for human food.

Dixon, the officer, here placed before his worship a
portion of one of the loaves of bread, as a specimen of
the manufactory. In form it was somewhat flat, with a
brown crust or covering, and when cut it had all the ap-
pearance of a Dutch cheese. _ _

Mr. Elliott, having examined the bread, remarked that
it appeared to him to be enormously heavy for its size,
upon which the man who made it, and who was em-
ployed by the complainant, said it was quite unfit for
human food. _

Dr. Bushill, one of the guardians of the poor for the
parish of Lambeth, and who happened to be in court on
other business, here remarked that he had submitted a
portion of the loaf before his worship to the test of boil-
ing water; and, to the best of his judgment, it was coin-.
posed of flour of rice, potatoes, and a portion, say a
third, of flour, and the composition beingdevoid of yeast,
and unfermented, was decidedly unfit for human food.
The landlord here remarked, that he was very willing
to forego the expense of the distress, provided the com-
plainant paid him the week's rent, but this the French-
man refused to do, and Mr. Elliott refused further in-
terference in the matter.

James Davis, the baker, who said that a portion of the
composition put into the bread used to be brought in
pails by his employer, and that, therefore, he could not
tell what it was, here applied to the magistrate to com-
pel the Frenchman to pay him his week's wages, but
Mr. Elliott refused to interfere, beyond offering him
a summons if his master persisted in his refusal to pay,
and here the matter ended.

THE ARMY.