Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/928

 916 FEDERAL REPORTER. �jadgment for $107 was sold to himself for $5, was good for his debts. Being asked on cross-examination if the day of sale had not been a county-eourt day, when the town was crowded, he replied that it was, and that there was a large crowi present, and among them the bankrupt and some of the creditors. He was then asked why the property did not sell for the priees he mentions, and he gives as the cause that it was a cash sale, and that there was a scarcity of money. He expresses the opinion that the animais were worth the sums he mentions in cash, and would have sold for that if there had been a credit sale and more money. The other witness gives the same opinion as to values, but he was not present at the sale, and had not seen the animais for more than six months. �I do not find in the record any order of the court to take these depositions, nor that there has been any compliance with the Revised Statutes, § 5003, and General Order No, 10. Indeed, there is no issue made by petition or otherwise on this question of value. When it was developed that the as- sets would not pay 30 per centum, the bankrupt seems to have Ëled with the register these depositions to prove that they were of greater value than shown by the sale. I cannot consent to this practice, as it is contrary to ail correct pro- cedure that 80 important a matter should be tried upon mere affidavits, as these so-called depositions must be taken to be. It seems to me that if the bankrupt desires to raise the ques- tion as to the value of his assets by showing that they were worth more than has been realized, he should present the facts on whioh he relies, showing that there has been a sac- rifice, and the cause of it, either in his petition for discharge or in some supplemental petition. He is not bound to the particular form prescribed for his petition for discharge, and should, if they are known, therein allege ail facts upon which he expects to procure it. General Order No. 32. This would present an issue, and the creditors and assignee being noti- fied, this important question of faot could be adjudicated in some more satisfactory way than has been here adopted. �In In re Hyndman, 6 Fed. Eep. 705, I considered the sub- ����