The Sun.
London, England, 1827-12-15 00:00:00

to Pais. I was then nineteen years of age, and
knew nothing of the world, having devoted my time
to study. My parents died, and I was left in
Paris . with a large fortune, but without any
experience of the world. The consequence was that
I got into high circles and indulged in dissipation. I
got acquainted with gamblers, and in six months
lost 50,000/. The Prince Polignac was a friend of
mine, we bad known each other from our infancy.
In the reign of Napoleon, the Prince was in prison,
and I often. endeavoured to soothe his hours. He
was in the dungeon of Vincennes, and my visits at-
tracted the attention of the Police, and as my family
were obnoxious to the government, I was arrested
on suspicion, and afterwards detained on account of
my debts.. The witness then entered into a long de-
scription of the manner in which he became acquainted
with bill-brokers and mock-bankers, by which a slur
was thrown on his character, but he declared, that
though an imprudent and unfortunate man, he always
I sustained the character of a gentleman tind'a man of
honour. He added, that De Lisle was the title of
his family, and that it was usual for persons of noble
family in France to take the titles of Count and Vis-
count, and that if he had ever relinquished the title,
it was because his, fortune was not sufficient to sup-
port an establishment suited to his rank.
A person'named Duncan stated that he had some
.discount transactions with the plaintiff, and that
Coates acted as Meego's confidential friend. Mr.
Meego himself was present, so that he could not
call Coates his agent.
The evidence for the defence having closed, Coates
was celled by the plaintiff to rebut the evidence of
De Lisle. He stated that he keeps a linen-draper's
shop in St. Martin's-lane, and that he introduced.
De Lisle to Meego' who discounted the bills at the
regular discount. De Lisle gave witness 100!. for
his trouble, but no part of that money went into
the pocket of Mr. Meego, nor was Meego aware
that witness received it. The 1001. was solely for
witness's benefit, and Mr. Meego bad no participa-

tion in it.
Cross-examined--I have stopped payment, but
subsequently paid my creditors. I was not the
agent of the plaintiff, nor of any ma n, except
of a gentleman •in Westmoreland. I know a
Mr. Hodson, he is my solicitor. I never employed
him to bring, actions on bills discounted by me.
Meego. It was I who introduced the plaintiff to
De Lisle. I got from 1001. to for the intro-
duction. De Lisle called on me, and offered me
money to perjure myself. He offered me all the mo-
ney in his purse ; but I don't know how much it was.
Mr. Walker, of America-square; Mr. Sims,
coachmaker, of Queen-street, Lincoln's-inn-square;
Mr. St. John, an auctioneer; and Mr. V. Francis,
of Camden Town, were severally examined, and
swore that they had various transactions with De
Lisle, and would not believe him on his oath
Counter evidence was produced to impeach the
testimony of the witness Coates, and a person who
had known him for 20 years swore he would not
believe him on his oath.
The ATTORNEY • GENERAL and Mr. GURNEY
having severally spoken to evidence.—
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, and the
Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
LAWLII V. BALFOUS.

This was an action brought 'for the recovery of
the sum of 91. 9s. for stationery, supplied by the
plaintiff to the defendant. Of this sum the de-
fendant had paid 21., but refused to pay the re-
mainder, on the ground that the credit had been
given to his clerk without his knowledge, and of
course without his authority. The clerk, it was
alleged, had been always supplied with money to
pay for such things, and had • been dismissed for
misconduct.
One witness was- examined, on each side, after
which the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—:
Damages 71. 95., being-the full athount of his claim.