The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-27 00:00:00

EEURSDAY

EV

in his circumstances, he made an assignment of his
pi•-•) t 1113 C:" 1i ors, ` giv- op
possession of his house in St. John's Wood, in which
a Frenchman, of the name of Noissons, had apart-
ments he took unfurnished lodgings in the house of
the defendant, who was a dairyman in Albany-street.
An agreement was thereupon drawn up between the
plaintiff and defendant, the former signing it in the
name of Noissons, for the purpose, as he alleged in
his evidence, of avoiding the danger of having the
furniture in that house seized upon by his creditors.
It appeared that an unfriendly feeling was soon after-
wards created between the parties in consequence of
the plaintiff feeding his dogs in the kitchen, and of
alleged irregularity in his hours for returning home
at night. The result was, the plaintiff having been
locked out on one night at half-past ten o'clock, and
having been afterwards given into custody by the de-
fendant on the charge of obtaining possession of the
apartments under,,h false or forged name.
The plaintiff, who was examined, stated that he had
received authority from the Frenchman, through his
(the plaintiff's) wife, to use his name, and that he
had informed the defendant subsequently to his taking
possession of the apartments that he had done so, but
that his real name was Samuel Charles Bennett, and
that while he occupied the apartments the defendant
had always addressed him by his proper name. The
plaintiff was taken upon this charge to the station-
house, and from thence to the police office, where,
upon the case being entered into, he was discharged
by order of Mr. Broughton, the magistrate.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS, who addressed the jury in an
able speech for the defendant, denounced the conduct
of the plaintiff in assuming another name, and stated
that defendant—having made inquiries of Mr. Nois •
Ms, who at that time had been carrying on business
as the patentee of stoves in Regent-street, and having
been informed by that gentleman that he gave the
plaintiff no authority to assume his name—thought

r--
he was warranted in giving him into custody. The
Frenchman having since left the country, there was
no means of ascertaining the truth upon this point.
There were no witnesses called for the defence
And the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 101.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 26.

:Sittings before Sir F. POLLOCK, Chief Baron, and

Common Juries.)
BARBAT V. ALLEN.

Mr. Hirslet appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr,
Gifford for the defendant.

This was an action by the plaintiff,who is a French-
man, for 281., the expenses of a journey to Paris in the
course of last summer, for the purpose of getting up
parties of excursions to visit London and stay at
defendant's hotel. The plaintiff not being able to
speak English, the negotiations between plaintiff and
defendant were carried on by a Colonel Parrent, who
was now called on the part of the plaintiff, and proved
the engagement entered into by the defendant.
In cross-examination he described himself as in-
tendent of an hotel. He had been charged at the Old
Bailey with stealing some property ; it was said he
had run away with another man's wife, and that he
had stolen the things she took with her, but he was
immediately acquitted. He was not charged with
stealing a pair of breeches. He was never charged
with stealing an umbrella. A friend of his took one
by mistake, and left an old one in its place. The one
taken was afterwards restored to its owner.

The broken English and manner of the witness ex-
cited great merriment throughout the court.
The plaintiff having been examined through an in-
terpreter, and having proved the expenses incurred by
him on defendant's business, the counsel for the de-
fendant addreesel the jury, and was about to set up a
defence to be substantiated by the evidence) of the de-
fendant's wife, when his Lordship said he should not
receive her evidence. The Learned Counsel upon
this said it would be useless for him to contend against
the plaintiff's case.
The wife having been tendered as a witness, pro
forma„and rejected by his Lordship, the jury returned
a verdict for the plaintiff for 271., one pound being
deducted by arrangement.