Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/392

IN BE FRET. 377 �on August 3, 1877, concerning the disposition of certain tobacco said to have been consigned to Beadles, Wood & Co., of New Orleans. This examination was three years prior to this proceeding for dis- cbarge. Tho examination was never read over or signed by the bank- rupt. The counsel for the creditors, in the course of these proceed- ings, Bought to compel the debtor to sign the old examination for the purpose of using it, as it stood, as evidence upon this proceeding. On examining the former testimony, which was originally taken by a stenographer, the debtor alleged that there were inaocuracies and errors in taking or transcribing it, and refused to sign it. Upon request of the counsel for the opposing creditors the matter was cer- tified to the court, and, upon hearing before Judge Choate, this court, in January, 1881, declined to make any order requiring the debtor to sign the paper presented as bis former testimony. This former deposition, not having been read to or signed by the debtor, was manifestly incomplete, and not of itself competent evidence upon this proceeding, in which the rules of evidence are the same as in ordi- nary trials. In re Van Buren, 2 Fbd. Rep. 643, 649. No other evi- dence than this unsigned and incomplete deposition was offered to sustain the charge of previous false testimony ; and, as this deposi- tion was rightly rejected, the third objection is overruled as not sus- tained by any competent evidence. �The fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth objections allege a fraudulent concealment, or fraudulent gift or transfer, of property, through ship- ments of tobacco, in Pebruary and March, 1876, to Beadles, Wood & Co., of New Orleans, and Zacharias & Co., of Chicago. The charge of an attcmpt at concealment or fraud in those shipments seems to have been based upon failure to find any accounts opened with those firms in the ledger or journal. The evidence shows, however, that these shipments were on consignment, and were entered not only on the United States revenue book, kept by the bankrnpts, but in special consignment books kept with those firms. The remittances received from each firm, on account of the consigned goods, were duly entered on the cash-book, and the corresponding entries, under the head of "marchandise," were made in the journal and ledger, as parts of various aggregate entries from the cash-book, as pointed out by Mr. Haas in his testimony. These entries seem to be inconsistent with the theory of either concealment or fraud, nor do I find any sufiicient evidence to sustain these charges. �The sixth and seventh objections allege concealment of books and papers, negligence in the custody of them, as well as false and ��� �