Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/290

 278 FEDEBAIi BBPOBTBR. �t. SAlffi— CONVBTAIIOBS M ABSENCE OV CONCEAL-MENT. �Conveyances of stocks made by bankrupt to hia wife, long before bankruptcy, and in the absence of concealment, are no ground for withholding a discharge. �6. Samb— Violation dp Provisions op Bankkupt Act— Bvidencb. �Wlxere the estate of the bankrupts yields a large percentage of uie indebted- ness, and where the only evidence adduced by the opposing creditors is the examination of the bankrupts before the register, the court should be clearly satisfied, upon the proof submitted, of the violation of the bankrupt aot befor» 'withiiolding a discbarge. �In Bankruptcy. �N. B. Bryant, for creditors. �James M. Ripley, for bankrupts. �CoLT, D. 3. In this ease specificationa are filed by sundry object- ing creditors against the disoharge of the bankrupts. It appears that the individual estate of Jesse Boynton paid 91 per cent. ; that no debts were proved against the individual estate of Lyman Boynton; and that the firm of Boynton Bros., composed of Jesse and Lyman, paid 81 per cent. While the specifications in terms oppose the dis- oharge of both brothers, yet we learn from the statement of counsel that the objecting creditors desire mainiy to resist the discharge of Jesse Boynton. �The first specification, that the bankrupts are not citizens of the United States, aud so not entified to the benefit of the bankrupt act, is not pressed, in view, probably, of the fact that they have resided in this couiitry for more than 26 years, and that resident aliens may take the benefit of the act. �The second specification charges wilful false swearing in the affida- vit annexed to the schedule or inventory, in that a certain farm in Canada, and certain real estate in Boston, were knowingly omitted therefrom. The evidence of Jesse Boynton diseloses that he and his brother had eouveyed to them many years before a farm in Canada of some 75 acres, which he thinks might sell for $1,000. He states that he had not thought of this property for years ; and when ques- tioned further as to whether the farm had not been within a few years on his books, in the form of assets, at a valuation of $3,600, he answers that hedoesnot know; that he never ordered itput there, and if there, representing such an amount, it was the sum paid for it. In the absence of any testimony impeaching this statement, and believing that the court should not hastily presume fraud merely from the fact of such an omission, in a case where the payment of so large a percentage of indebtedness tends to show general good faith, we cannot but conclude that this omission was unintentional — an over- ��� �