Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/476

 468 FEDERAL EBPORTEB. �Agaia, Carter's petition does not expressly or substantially traverse the averaient in the bankrupt's petition that the bankrupt carried on business in the district aforesaid for six months next immediately preceding the filing of this peti- tion. Clearly want of jurisdiction is not sufficiently shown by the averments of Carter's petition. His learned counsel themselves seem to have had doubts on this point, for they have moved the court for leave to amend the petition by in- serting the words: "Nor had the said Samuel W. Groome resided or carried on business in the said western district during the six months immediately preceding the time of filing his petition in bankruptcy, nor during any portion of said six months." �I must decline to allow this amendment, and must sustain the motion to dismiss Mr. Carter's petition on two grounds : First, for the reason already expressed, I am of opinion that under ail the circumstances the question of jurisdiction ought not to be raised by the petitioner in the manner proposed, and at this stage of the case; second, I think the object the petitioning creditor bas in view may be reached without an- nuUing the adjudication. His real purpose (as I infer from the argument of his counsel) is to prevent the bankrupt's discharge. Now it is entirely competent for him to oppose the discharge on the ground that the court bas no jurisdiction of the case, and if this is shown the discharge will be refused. In re lÀttle, 2 B. E. 294; In re Penn, 3 B. E. 582. �I am now brought to the consideration of another motion made by the counsel of Mr. Carter, viz. : that he be permitted to take part in the examination of the bankrupt before the register in bankruptcy, in any hearing upon the bankrupt's application for his diseharge, and that the bankrupt be ordered to attend for such examination before the register upon reasonable notice, and submit to an examination by said Carter or his counsel. �It bas been already stated that Carter has not proved his debt against the bankrupt, but this is immaterial. The faot that he has a provable debt is shown by the bankrupt's =rhprhile and otherwise, and is admitted. ��� �