His troubles were caused by an agreement to write articles for the Lancet. He claimed Dr Elliotson (whom he knew through the Phrenology society) had agreed to do this, not him. The latter said the letter was a forgery and they quarreled, which led to the civil action and at some stage he was in prison for �10 11s and 6d .
In court he represented himself as he had no money to pay a lawyer.

The proceedings of the hearing are hilarious and pathetic at the same time.
Witnesses claimed ,or denied, that he had said he :
Was a marquis, son of a marquis and grandson of a count from Naples. A knight of St John of Jerusalem, had been in all Napoleon's campaigns in Russia, Poland , Egypt; had been in Arabia and a prisoner of Arabs, seen the Great Wall of China, India and New York.
His grandfather was the philosopher who first burnt the diamond. Could speak 24 languages but understand 34. read in the dark and read backwards.
Didn't speak till he was 7 and frightened by a wild bull , or until he was 6 when soldiers entered the house to kill his father when he suddenly spoke: Don't kill my father.
Had a ball in his stomach � or brain.
Had a Toledo blade which he wore round his waist.
Was a ruminant and was ruminating at Napoleon's nuptials , until he fainted from the pain.
Had ravished 18 nuns in one night.
Had fought 93 duels and always wounded the victim in the left eye.
Had protected the French Queen for 5 years in his chateau.
Claimed he wrote Pelham for Bulmer.
Shall I go on?

The judge at one time compares him to Baron Munchhausen. A surgeon said he was unable to tell the truth, and suggested some mental problem.

Yet he himself was quite eloquent : I had nothing except my reputation , and when they conspired against me I became a social outcast .

The verdict was for him ; but the defendants had justification. In other words a sort of stalemate.
It was painful reading of the laughter in court when certain accusations were mentioned. He in fact more or less denied making any of the so-called claims against him.