Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/398

 IN BE FEBT. 383 �the books could^be balaneed, and that they were balanced, in fact, on Marcb 1, 1S76, the month pr«oeding the failure. Muller testified that they could not be balanced, but wben asked ^hy they could not be, said, "I cannot tell ; there must be a mistake, or mistakes, in the books, which I did not take the trouble to find out;" nor does he intimate the amount of the discrepancy, wbether material or imma- terial. �In the. cross-examination of Haas, the only. defect or omission pointed out as needed to make the books balance, was the omission to enter in the cash-book $500 paid to L. Cohn & Go., for which their receipt was taken in the receipt-book, April 12, 1876. The stub of the check put in evidence shows, "April 1G,:L. Cohn, expense account, $500." This omission was obviously a casual one, and ,is not speci- ued as a ground pf objection in the specifications. -These objections have been considered with more particularity, perhaps, than waa requisite. Not a single transaction was disclosed in the volumiuous evidence which does not appear, in some form, upon the books of the firm. This circumstance, considering the industry and perseverance of counsel for the opposing creditors, affords a strong presumption that no concealment or fraud was intended. �The intricate and highly artificial system of book-keeping by double entry admits of many diverse modes of entering the same business, transaction, and bas given rise to standards of criticism among experts which the bankrupt act does not demand. �The standard in the mind of Mr. Muller, the expert in behalf of creditors in this case, who testified that these books were not prop- erly ke'pt, may be seen from bis statement that a check-book is not properly kept if the 'checks are not numbered, or if more than one check is drawn against a single stub; that no erasure in a ledger is justifiable; and if an error be made in carrying out the figures it must be corrected in no other way than by a crosg entry of "error" to an amount sufficient to make the needed correction ; and that it is a very suspicions circumstance if entries are found in one book and not in another, although he admits, as an expert, that "the entry in one book even affords to his mind the conclusion that no conceal- ment was intended." �It is manifest that the standard of this witness is not the standard of the bankrupt act. The pbject of the clause requiring "proper books of account" is primarily to secure the keeping of the necessary books to show the course and condition of a merchant's business ; and the courts have held that it further requires that sueh books be ��� �