Case ID: f-cas_30/html/0541-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BLATCHFORD, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 17,999.
    In re WOODWARD et al.
    [4 Ben. 102;  3 N. B. R. 719 (Quarto, 177).]
    District Court, E. D. New York.
    March, 1870.
    Privilege op Counsel—Witness.
    A witness who claims to have acted as counsel for a bankrupt, cannot, on that ground, refuse to be sworn as a witness in the bankruptcy ! proceedings.
    [In the matter of George Woodward and Julius C. Woodward, bankrupts.]
    In this case, the assignee for the bankrupt, by his counsel, attended before the register, and one William MeKeag attended as a witness, but refused to be sworn, on the ground that he had acted as counsel for the bankrupt, and was still his adviser.
    The register decided as- follows: “The right to refuse to answer a vquestion on the ground of privilege, does not warrant a refusal to be sworn as a witness. The privilege cannot be interposed until a question is asked which invades the privilege.”
    On request the register certified the question to the court.
   BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

The decision of the register is correct.