Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1843-08-04
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
VERMONT DISTRICT,
IN BA N X RUPrCY. y
In The matter Of .qlonzo Pearce.


This WINS petition 10y Aonzo penrce, Bank
rupt one of The partners OF the firm Of Wulhrldge.
Pearce, a. Co, Tor discharge, he material
iucls in the case will sufficiently appear from the
opinion delivered by The court
PRENTlss, 1.-The objections filed in this case
by the opposing creditors, although somewhat
mutiarious MS well as numerous, muy he clussed
under two general heads. |. That the Bankrupt
has not made full disclosure of his property IN
his schedule, Int has irquduIently concealed prop
erty. 2 That lie has given unlawful preferences
TO particular creditors Ivy certain payments, secu-
rites, and transfers OF property. These two gen
era objections seem to comprise the whole case
us presented by the proofs
|. Under the first head Of objections the con.
ceament Of property, an argument was urged with
much earneslness 10y counsel, founded on The ap-
parent difference between the state aud condition
of the partnership affairs exhibited by the in
ventory taken in April 1910, aud the state and
condition of the partnership affairs as represented
in the BInkrupl's schedules filed in April lo42 1t
was said, that rs the inventory showed a surplus
OF assets of between two aud three thousand dol.
lars over all liabilities, aud the schedules shew
outstanding debts, now unsatsfied, oil more than
four thousand dollars, with no assets TO pay them
it cannot he supposed that so great loss, being
difference OF between six aud seven thousand dol
lars, could arise IN the course OF The partnership
business in the short period Of two years; aud
therefore ii is said it must be presumed that prop
orty is wrongiuIIy withheld
Upon this 1t may he observed in the first place,
that conceaIment of pro, 'erty involves not 0nly
charge OF gross fraud bui nlsD the crime ut false
swearing and sch being the nature OF the charge,
it ought Ia he substauliaeI either hy drecl ieSi-
mDny, or by such facts ntl ird uueqiivocal CIR
cuulstantial evidence OF it, II certainly ought 10,
to lie taken as true upon any slight or Ambiguous
Prescriptions, nor upon any STATE of iacis which
10 not clearly, aud lnlrel almost necessarily call
for such an Inference. Now, there nre many WAYS
in which the supposed loss may be accounted Tor
without impullug actual fraud 10 The BLnkrIp
such us 10y an over estimate OF the property AT HE
time OF taking the uvenlory-hy dents turning
ON 10 ba bad which were then supposed 10 be
good by the general depreciation which is
known to have taken place in the vauc OF prop
cry. There 10 no certainly, nor indeed any hiSh
inprnb Ibiy, that such are not The true causes ol
The loss; but, ut any rnte, would be too much to
say, in the absence of all proof on The SUBJECT,
that the loss is TO he impned not to any such sup
possible causes as these, but 10 positive fraud aud
willul misconduct on the part OF the Bankrupt.
But il is to lie noticed, that The dGbs of tour
Thousand dollars still renanug unpaid are sline
OF them secured by mortgages on The properly,
and the property sI stands as security tor them !;
that The loss is not great a, has been compu.
ted. Besides, il is to be remembered, that IN No
vemher lol0 ali the property OF the partners was
attached and goods aud other personal properly,
estimated al $4,000, were sold on executions III
December 1910 for about $500. Here was II
sacrifice at once OF something ike S25OO; aud it
is not TOO much Ia suppose, that IN tie shifts and
turns tie partners were obliged to make under the
difficulties lhen pressing upon thehI other consid-
erabe sacriIices may not also have been incurred.
But looking 10 the inventory, should form a
different OpuI0n from that expressed by the coun-
sci, US well as from that which seems TO have been
entertained by ii use who made the inventory. The
inventory represents the jpint aud separate assets
IL.
Sl395S al the hu,i tiles ut | 633 making
the partners good for $2,SG7. But ii is 10 he
noticed, that Ia make out this surplus there was
| Included IL The account OF assets a Gebt OF 81
| Cts % against the old irm of Wdbrdge Il Penrce
when it is conceded that ,hat firm wns insOivenl
ut The time for at least $3.50 ~. so that really
there was no surplus; aud my conclusinn would
be, considering the magnitude of the liabilities
anil the nature OF tire assets, that The partnership
and the ind, composing It were III lac
then insplvent. Such think il he iair concu
slun especially when it is considered tat the
whole surplus made out consisted ui debt due
from two OF the plrtner5 tlIein1elvtS.
As To the SNAIL amouGt ot dtn1nds set iori
| by the bankrupt in his schedule nS belonging to
the firm, ii appears thar IN HE sum ner OF loI'
notes 10 the amount Of $4,000 were turned out Il
| pay Henry Gissrlt s. Co and certain other credl
tors aud thar in November Of the same year, nj
the partnership accounts we're assigned ~ liicn
and Dwinnc, 10 pay, list, certain debts due then
ard certain liabilities they then incurred ms sure
noI .'.e" !" P"y Io''''', onV, o'o',p l'''''ou
iu''y "aeui n'u '"o reS'uH, !, my W pay 81, r,o"
5 ho's res"'"'S W ''e 'ou"'y vi "ns"'"e'o.' i"''
: W We oose''e"' was al u"s'ue ,''''
VI uus' " p"y 're''no's' 'e"ti'S W. ,us'''u''''
W'ar'e, !" Wv DnnN'"P' ali ' r''"''e' "'''
| D"'nHel' 'esHnes mat enough mas NOV oce'r c"'
'eceu "'' Vi ne ucc""h'H ~ e'e" 'ne P'''o,,e 81
c'e,'o's r'uI",ary ""'"eu' ""'so "Pou' , 'nn
III No'c''i"e' iof'' "oeS =" 'ilo "l""i'' y. So
wh'o "'s.s'on !" i''"e' n".'o' $40 s,
e'', ~ "''', .'.'s ~ 'lo a'','u' VI 9yoo ~ 1Hu
, ,, as ~, a,,rr -. ,J ,h h,,anc,
no'es "' an el,'a' am }un,i "hu .l,e oa'ance,
"'y' W '''o "."'a VI ""'oc'; 10 10 'o "a
I u"ce' my III ''ie han"' VI ash h'ne', 10 WIN.
u +" seo''i' '''o'o ,I"' eIe" previous
u h"sH' was, "n ''e 81" Vi n"s"s' iof' u'e'5' 10
" A>a'e' t"'oo W pay uu" "'a ''' 'o' VI
hi'h W oo'f' i"ese "Ns'Snl'en's' "' W ""'''