Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/395

 380 FEDERAL REPORTER. �that class of accounts. The same remarks apply to the loan of $5,556.60 from De Fries, and the pledge of warehouse certificates to secure it. Due entry was made of the money received in the cash- book, while the goods represented by warehouse certificates pledged were entered, as Mr. Haas believed, in a separate memorandum book. There was no entry in the other usual books, because, as he says, it was not necessary ; on payment of the loan and the credit of cash Bo paid in the cash account the books would balance. The full statement of the merohandise pledged to De Pries and of the loan upon it, which was contained in the schedules filed not long after in connection with the voluntary assignment on June 6, 1876, which have been put in evidence, shows conclusively that no con- cealment was either made or intendcd, as is charged by the thirteenth objection. �The faet that such consignments and hypothecations of goods were exceptional transactions, not in the usual course of the business of the bankrupts, is perhaps a sufficient explanation of their not making the original entries of the merchandise consigned or pledged in their usual books, but in special books used for these purposes. As such special books afford all necessary information to understand the transactions, they cannot be beld to be not "proper books of account" within the meaning of the bankrupt law. �(6) On the argument special objection was also made to the omis- sion to enter in the cash-book or in any other book except the check- book, the numerous checks appearing from the stubs to have been given to Lagowitz & Co., above referred to, amounting in the aggre- gate to about $74,000. But as these were all "exchange" checks, as testified to by Mr. Haas, and so noted, mostly, on the stubs themselves, I see no reason to doubt the correctness of his testimony that "no further entry of them (even had payment of the checks been proved) was either necessary or proper." They did not affect the business any more than the cashier's giving bills from his drawer in exchange for a check to the same amount, for the accommodation of a friend, would have done. These exchanges were doubtless resorted to simply for the benefit of an apparent temporary increased balance in their bank account while the checks were going through the clearing-house, equiv. aient to one or t^o days' credit in bank. The entries in the check- book were, I think, all that were needed. If, in fact, any further entries of them would have been proper, their omission cannot be deemed material, as they did not affect the business or iinaneial condi- tion of the debtors. In re BatchelJer, 3 N. B. E. 150. ��� �