Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-11-22

the officer came who, as we have seen, was not an
unexpected, and should judge not an unuccepta
BILE visitor, the bankrupt, anticipating tho wishes
of this usually unwelcome iuntonary OF the law,
who is commonly left, unaided by debtors, to find
his own wav in his searches after property as best
he can, very obligingly lighted his lantern, and
went with bin to the barn, kindly igmng him to
where the property was This, to be sure of it.
self, is not very important circumstance, but be-
ing one of the characteristics of tlc transaction,
disclosed by the testimony it is not unworthy Of
notice with the others.
But the most material part of the testimony re-
mains to be stated. 1t appears that the bankrupt,
at the time of the confession Of judgment, held a
lease from Caleb Paris of farm IN Dandy, for the
term of six years from the LIST of March 1897, at
an annual rent of 57O0. Besides the rent for the
year 1912, which unpaid, he was indebted to
Paris in the sum of $500 for cattle received from
him by virtue of the lease When the latter sum
would be payable, does not appear but the rent
would become due the LIST of March, and the lease
would MT expire until one year from that time.
| Now, Stephen Roberts tesltes, that before the
property was taken IN execution, the bankrupt told
him that unless he could make arrangement with
Paris, and get a reduction of the rent, he should
not pay him, though he could; and after the prop
erty was TAKEN he told the witness he expected to
have the property back if he succeeded in making
an arrangement with Paris, which he thought he
should be able to do. Allen Roberts also testfes
that the bankrupt told him that he did not know
but he should have all the property back if he
could make an arrangement with Paris And Ca
eb Buium says, that after the property was taken,
the bankrupt told him that he could not afford to
pay much rent for the farm; that he would give
$3.50 for the years rent then due, and had the
money in his pocket to pay it, and would give $500
year for the remainder of the term. On the wit.
ness inquiring how he could carry on the farm
without the stock and tools, he replied, that he
could have back the property which had been ia
ken, whenever he pleased. Now, upon this testi-
mony, can any one be at loss concerning the mo-
tive and object of the bankrupt in giving the con-
fcssion of Judgment? Was it not to bring Paris
to terms, and force him to reduce the rent of the
farm, by presenting to him the alternative of doing
so or getting nothing?
The testimony Of Vail, one of the execution
creditors, goes rather TO confirm this view of the
case than otherwise. lie says there was no under
standing with the bankrupt that he should have back
the property levied upon, except through an ar.
rangement proposed by A. X. Vail q Co. to Paris,
that if he would reduce the rent Of the farm to
three hundred and fifty or four hundred dollars they
would become responsible for the rent, and the
property might 90 back into the hands of the bank
rupt; which proposition, Vail says, made at
the suggestion of the bankrupt after the levy of
the execution This proves that after the execution
was scwed, and all the property of the bankrupt
was secured by seizure upon it, proposition to re-
duce the rent and have tho property 20 back into
the hands of the bankrupt, was in fact made to
Paris. Now, was this proposition the offspring of
mere alterthought, first suggested after the levy
of the execution, or did it originate in precon.
ceved design, existing at and before the confess
sion of judgment? If no such design is proved to
have been entertained by the creditors, the pre-
sumption is strong from the testimony that the
bankrupt had the matter then in contemplation
for, before the property was taken, and, we may
conclude, before tue confession Of judgment, for
one followed the other almost Immediately, he told
Stephen Roberts, as we have already seen, that I'M
less he could make an arrangement with Paris, and
get reduction Of the rent, he should not pay him.
Taking, then, the declarations of the bankrupt be
fore and after the confession Of judgment, and put
ting them together, think it must be inferred that
he consented to the judgment willingly, knowing
that all his property would be Immediately taken
in execution and expecting by that means to get
the rent reduced, and then have the property re-
stored to him.
There is another part of the testimony which
ought not to be omitted. 1t appears that thirteen
seized on the execution were afterwards re-
turned to the bankrupt, kept by hun ten or twelve
days. and then sold by him to Il clerk in the store OF
one ofhe execution creditors. The bankrupt, his
examination, says the COWS were returned to him
III consequence of a question arising whether the
cows belonged to him to Paris; that he sold
them to make payment ON the executions and
that after the sale they were driven away in the
night time for the purpose of concealng from Par
is where they were.
From all the circumstances of the case, repeat
am forced to the conclusion, that the confession
of judgment was voluntary OIL the part of the bank
rupt, and was given for the purpose of compelling
Paris to reduce the rent of the farm, and, if that
could not be effected, then TO defeat his debt
tirely, contemplating bankruptcy as the ultimate
resort. The confession of judgment was on the
LIST of February, the day the bankrupt law wentin
to operation the rent became due to Paris the LIST
of March and the petition in bankruptcy was filed
the Both of March all following on in regular
succession, and all taking place within the space
of two months. From the view | have taken Of
the case, it follows that the bankrupt is not ent-
tied to discharge; and discharge is according
ly refused him.