The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-03-18
District Court Of the United states.
Refore ludve Rafta


MARCH 1.-THE petition OF Chester M Ged-
dings had been objected to principally on the
ground that mention Was made IN the schedule oil
certain notes having been assigned but it did not
set forth the makers Of said notes, the name
| residence of the receiver. The Court was willing
to make every allowance fer imperfect papers, but
the creditors had right TO be fully and clearly in
formed as TO the situation Of petitioner. The OBJ
jections were allowed.
Among the petitioners, whose term Of advertis-
ing had expired, was Scion Parsons. Objections
were offered, when Mr. Western demurred. He
said the act required an objsctor to throw up all
his claims, whereas, in the present case he Is
| carrying the same matter through q local court
that he bases his complaint on here, and hopes to
get time whereby to issue an execution.
The Court observed that il there was any mo-
tion to be made, it must be placed ON the docket
In answer to MIR. Western, Judge b. also stated
that the delay would not prejudice his ease.
Mr. w entered his motion, which will be argued
in course by himself and Mr. Have., asd deer
sion probably obtained as to how far the Court
considers itself autho rzed to protect the property
Of petitioner in behalf Of all the creditors, his
schedule being filed
The objections against w. Willets having
been withdrawn, and those against Otis p. Jewett
not proceeded in, they passed to the usual decree
In answer to Mr. Western, the Court stated that
notice of publication could be sworn to before
Observation-Disclosures, either BY the printer or BY
any other person who could testify to ts being pub
lished the regular number Of times. This aIlsdes
more particularly to the notice ia the cocntry
papers.
MIR. Sayre moved that decree be allowed in
the case Of Carlos p Houghton the Eve days al.
lowed for the commissioners return having ex-
pired, and none being produced. The Court OBJ
served that II intended to pass very summarily on
such cases, and il good cause were not shown Why
the return was withheld, the decree would be per-
sm,ptory
assigned his property, and had not accumslated any
since This was objected to by MIR. Kimball and
defe dad nv r. M hO ata I'D a. n
meant, in good faith, what it implied. The case,
on other points, must 90 before commits ioner,
when this, also, could be decided.
Mr.. BARBER read an affidavit in which he stated
that the opposing counsel to the petition Of Allen
Waddell, was willing to withdraw the objections
SO far relates to the decree, but was avcrse to
doing so, lest it should operate against him in sub
sequent proceedings. He asked for a decree
from the commissioner in the course Of five days,
the decree could neces .arily be Obtained and that
could be arranged by counsel. The present mode,
however, might do as we'll. Decree allowed.
In relation to Parsons, Mr. Ravens stated that
his books and papers were now under his control,
and asked an order to compel him to bring them
in, which was granted ue ta tfsl
A few petitions to which the term for advertising
had expired, passed to the usual decree. Be-
sides that Of Parsons, objections were offered 10
those Of George l. Wescott, Henry Ssuthwick,
Samuel L. Danfeld. 49,
The first return; from Bankrupt commission
err, was made in the Of George Brown
Mr.. Field appeared in behalf of Messrs. Nah
Ter, the opposing creditors, and Mr.. J. w.
Edmonds for the petitioner. The case has been
argued, and testimony taken before Judge Ed
wards, one Of the commissioners and the facts now
brought in to be passed upon by the court. The
case involves several points, the principal Of which
are that he had appropriatedtO hse trust funds,
and had also made improper preferences in his as
signment. What constitute such will probably be
decided in this case The defeRce is raised, also,
that appropriation Of trust funds can only affect
the immediate party, and will be no bar to decree
as respects other creditors.