Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/396

 IN BB FBEY. 381 �(c) These considerations are a sufficient answer, also, to the general charge that the check-book and cash-book and bills-payable book do not correspond, Mr. Haas, one of the bankrupts, who kept the books and was himself an expert, testified that the one was not an index to the other. Nor does any reason appear why all receipts of cash or checks, or even those received from the payment of business debts, should be necessarily deposited in bank. They are often paid ont tUrectly on account of business obligations, and properly so. Checks may also be given ont in exchange, or in making change, bo as not to be necessarily entered in the cash-book. Perfect corre- spondence is not, therefore, to be looked for between the cash-book and the check-book on either side. Though a cheek-book may be made to serve the purposes of a cash-book, it is not usually so, Or- dinarily, it presents but an incidental and subordinate account, viz. : an account of the particular drafts upon and deposits in the bank for which it is used, So, also, as between the cash-book and bills-pay- able book, A note or bill payable, paid otherwise than in cash or check, need not go in the cash account. An accommodation note, entered in the bills-payable book when issued, would have no corre- sponding entry at all upon the cash-book if never negotiated ; nor, if negotiated, would the corresponding entry in the cash-book be made until the date of the receipt of money on it, �The expert mentions seven items between January and April, 1876, charged to bills-payable as paid in the cash-book, and not entered in the bills-payable book, amounting altogether to about $e,000. As the cash-book is the more important of the two, these omissions, if in fact omitted from the other book, would seem to be of little impor- tance ; but as the bills-payable book was lost by the oreditor's coun- sel prior to these proceedings, and the extracts from it by the expert were confessedly partial and incomplete, Mr. Haas had no opportu- nity to contradict or explain the alleged omissions by reference to the book itself. These omissions were not pointed out in the specifica- tions. Five of the seven were prior to March 1, 1876, when, as Mr. Haas testifies, the books aetually balanced, The due counter entries as to these five must, therefore, have been somewhere made. The expert was not recalled to deny or qualify Mr, Haas' testimony that the books balanced to that date, There were no omissions, there- fore, affecting the state of the business as to the five items prior to March Ist ; and it cannot be assumed that the two subsequent alleged omissions were of any different character. �(d) "Accommodation paper'to the amount of about $32,000 i>aid, ��� �