Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/654

 m BB TAN BUBEN. 647 �gage of June 18, 1874, was produced; and it appears by that copy, as -well as by the release above referred to, that, instead of being a mortgage to secure a bond of these bank- rupts, it is a mortgage by the bankrupt Lorenzo Van Buren alone to secure his individual bond. It does net purport to be, therefore, a joint or partnership debt, but the individual debt of Lorenzo Van Buren. Moreover, no evidence what- ever was offered to support the claim, except the deposition for proof of the debt itself, which is obviously untrue, and the recital of the giving of the bond eontained in the mort- gage. No proof of debt has been made or offered against Lorenzo Van Buren. Partridge, the claimant, was not called as a witness, He was represented in these proceedings by the bankrupt's attorney. Lorenzo Van Buren was not called as a witness. Bquire Van Buren was examined. He pro- fessed to have no knowledge of this debt; and, from his testimony, I think a strong probability arises that Partridge has other mortgage security for the claim, if there be any valid claim, intended to be described in the proof of debt. On these grounds it must be held that Partridge's proof of debt against the bankrupts mnst be rejected. �The other objections to the discharge may be briefly noticed. Those objections now insisted on are the failure to keep proper books and the making of false entries in their books with intent to defraud a creditor. The charge is that, having made a contract with one Christie for the manufacture and sale of brick on joint account, under which they would become iadebted to him for one-half the proceeds of sales from time to time, they f alsified their books by understating the receipts, and rendered false accounts to him, and, when sued for an accounting under the contract, they, by means of their false books and by perjury in support of them, procured the judg- ment which was taken against them to be for a much less sum than the amount really due, leaving the difference still unpaid, for which fraud they were af terwards sued. And the judgments which constitute the claim of the objecting creditor, Verplanck, who was receiver of the estate of Christie, are ����