The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-05 00:00:00

From the month of March to the month of September she
lived there, and when she asked him to execute some deed or
writing, ti secure her the money, he knocked her down and
beat her most cruelly, blackening her eyes and otherwise disfi-
guring her. He, assisted by his wife, repeated the same treat-
ment whenever she made a similar request, until, on the 4th
of September they kicked her violently into the street, and gave
her in custody to a policeman on the charge of being drunk.
She was kept at the station-house until the following.morning,
when, on the oath of the insolvent, she was tined five shillings
by the sitting Magistrate. After that day she never returned
to the Blue l'osts, and soon afterwards sued the ins advent for
the amount of money lent, and took him in execution. When
first sued he sold out the interest in the house for nearly the
same sum which he paid for it.

The witne s, in her cross-examination by Mr. WOODRUFFE,
said that, although perfectly sober when given into custody
of the police, she might have had the appearance of being
under the influence of liquor from the kicks and ill-usage she
received from the insolvent and h s wife. After being fined,
she showed a certificate to the Magistrate from a medical gen-
tleman describing the injuries she received.
Witnesses were called on behalf of the insolvent to endea-
vour to establish proof of Miss Francis being a person of
drunken habits, but their statements were immaterial.
In his examination the insolvent said that the marks of in-
jury which she sometimes bore on her face were the effects of
falls she got while intoxicated.
Mr. COOKE said the charge against the opposing creditor
was one which was but too frequently brought under similar
circumstances. At all events there could be no doubt but she
had lost all the savings which she accumulated during a long
life of servitude through the heartless conduct of the insolvent,
and he trusted the Court would consider this to be a case than
which few required a more severe application of the discre-
tionary clause of the Act.
'1 he Learned CHIEF CoatatissioNEß said the opposing
creditor's testimony detailed the most heartless ingratitude on
the part of the insolvent ; however, there was no other evi-
dence adduced to confirm her statement,; but he could desig-
nate the conduct of the insolvent, under ail the circumstances,
of taking money from a woman without using every possible
means to repay her, as shabby. and disgraceful in the extreme,
and an indication a an ungenerous and unfeeling mintl.. How-
ever, as tnere was no collateral evidence in support of that of
the opposing creditor's, he felt that it was not a case which he
could deal with under the clause referred to by the Learned
Goose'. IN RE DAVIS.

NicnoLts, on behalf of several creditors of the insol-
vent, who held an appointment in Woolwich, at a salary. of
3001. per annum, said he was instructed to state that the in.
solvent had expressed his willingness to give up 100/. per annum
of his salary, to be appropriated in the liquidation of the debts,
and thltthey expressed their concurrence in the arrangement.

Mr. HUGIIES; who appeared on behalf of a creditoi': at the
hearing, said he had received no instructions whatever from
his client.

Mr. Cooke and Mr. Nicholls, who represented a large body
of the creditors, expressed themselves satisfied ; when Air.
Hughes offered no further opposition, and the arrangement was
agreed to by the Court.