The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-12-04
BROOKL YIN CITY.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUNT.



Pa me Matter of James B'odhead Bankratpf.--
This case before rue upon specifications OF Ger
tain objections the discharge OF the bankrupt. The
main ground relied on In opposition to the discharge
arises under the first specification, which IL In snb-
stance that the bankrupt in contemplation OF becom-
ing bankrupt, made an assignment of his property
FOR purpose Of preventing 1t from coming into the
hands OF the assignee bankruptcy and being dis
trbuted under the provision Of the Bankrupt act.
The evidence bearing upon the specification as pre-
scented TO me consists solely OF the testimony of
the bankrupt given IN writing from which II
appears thaE the bankrupt failed on the 25th day OF
FEBRUARY, 1868, for large SUR and upon the same
day executed general ass9 me OF an nis proper.
W then of the nominal vallr over 100000, and
conceded to be OF at least the value OF $4,000 to
one Peter Clogher. OF utica in this state, in
trust fer the benefit or his creditors, without
preference. The assignment has not been pro-
duced before me, but its contents and effect are
stated by the bankrupt and conceded by the
counsel TO be as above This assignment was record
Ell IN the county Of Kings being the county
Of the bankrupt'5 residence on the 18TH or
February, 1868, and on the next day the bankrupt
filed his petition In the conrt asking 10 be dis
charged OF debts to the amount OF 100000, and
averring that ne had no property beyond u lew
articles OF wearing apparel. Upon such a speclnca-
,,on and such proofs the only question which can
he claimed to be open for consideration is to the
intent OF the bankrupt II making his assignment TO
Ciogher. Assuming Chat the provision OF the twenty
ninth section Of the Bankrupt act which iorbida a
ment OF his property In contemplation or bankruptcy,
Tor the purpose OF preventing his properly from
coming into the hands Of the assignee,
and being distributed under the act, refers to
an intention to iie a petition in bankruptcy: and
assuming aso for the purpose OF this case that this
bankrupt can be permitted to show that the actual
ana under the circumstances the necessary result
OF making his assignment was not intended by him
by proving that he had 1T that time no intention OF
Hing petIOn still il IL manifest thai the facts
conceded here cast upon The bankrupt the burden or
showing the absence OF that intent. That burden
rupt Denies in the words OF the act, the intention
imputed TO him ana declares that when he made
the assignment he had no intention Of fling
petition In bankruptcy; but he falls to show any
change Of circumstances between the making OF his
assignment the 25lh and the ding OF his petition
the 10Th which accounts Tor any change OF inten-
ton. When he made MS assignment he was hope
es-ly insolvent and he must have known Ii, and his
denial OF any intention then TO take advantage OF
the Bankrupt act, however positive, IS not, III the alb
sence ui any cOnhrnat0ry circumstances, sufficient
70 repel the strong presumption which arises from
bankrupt, that he concluded ON the 10th to take
the benefit because he saw statements in the
newspapers that The fifty per cent clause OF
The act would 20 into effect the next day,
shows alirnativey the existence OF previous in
tentlon to take advantage OF tue act II is indeed,
an extraordinary proposition that the Bankrupt
Court can be asked To discharge person from all
his debts who has, by an assignment to private
assignee placed all his property where II can be adj
only by the tribunals OF the State. Sys
tenn Of bankruptcy which would thus in practice
permit a discharge or the debtor without simulta-
neous administration and distribution Of the property
among the creditors would be Il monstrosity
Neither the spirit the letter OF the present Bank
rupt act permits such proceeding. Tie discharge
must be refused