The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1876-03-25
IN BANKRUPTCY
Charge Of Judge Billings in the
]. G.. Levi Case.
Interesting to Our Merchants.

Judge Billings yesterday delivered the fol-
lowing charge:
Gentlemen Of the Jury-This is a proceeding
under the Bankrupt act, by which certain
creditors of Isaac G. Levi are seeking to have
him adjudged bankrupt. For the purposes
of the inquiry by you, it may be assumed
that the requisite portion Of his creditors
have united in the petition herein, as that
question is, under the statute, to be deter
mined by the Court.
The burden Of proof is upon the petition
ing creditors, and you mus. be satisfied by q
preponderancs Of evidence that the acts
charged were committed, or You must find
for the defendant.
You are to take the law as it is given to
You by the Court, and applying the law as
thus given, are to determine whether all or
any, and which of the alleged acts of bank
ruptcy have been committed by the defend
ant. These alleged acs are four in number:
l. That on or about the Goth day OF January
last, the defendant, being q merchant, fraud:
ulently suspended the payment OF his COM
mercal paper.
2. That, being insolvent and knowing of
his insolvency, he fraudu emily made an
agreement with B. Moses and Isadore New
man, whereby he procured the taking of his
property under legal process, with the intent
to give preference to said Moses aud New
man, the same being creditors, and with the
intent to delay and defeat the operation of
| the bankrupt act.
That, being merchant, on Dec. 16, 1875,
he suspended, and did not resume the pay
ment of his commercial paper for the period
of forty days.
! 4 That he made fraudulent sales of his
goods with the intent to delay and dsfe 1t the
| operation of the bankrupt act. after the 18th
day of November, A. D., 1875.
l shall consider these alleged acts in the
foregoing order, and shall call your attention
to the law as applicable thereto and to the
leading facts which have been proved for and
| against the debtor.
l. That on or about the 26.h day of Janu-
ary last, the defendant, being merchant,
fraudulently suspended the payment of his
commercial paper. do not under
stand that there is any question as
to the defendant being merchant,
nor as to the paper being commercial paper,
nor as to his having suspended its payment
The question to be determined by you is, did
he suspend frauduiently.
l instruct you, gentlemen. that if the de-
PENDANT honestly endeavored to pay his paper
but was unable by reason of .misfo rtune to
pay, that this is not q fraudulent suspension.
instruct you, thar if he was able to pay, but
concealed his estate or diverted it purposely
from his creditors, or withheld it 80 that it
was not applied to the payment of his COM
mercial notes when they became due, that
this constitutes fraudulent suspension.
The defendant has attempted to prove to
you that he is simply one victim in common
stagnation in trade. The evidence on the
part of the creditors tends to show that within
the three or four months prior to his suspen-
sion he purchased on credit in the neighuor-
hood of $50, 600 worth of goods; that he dis
posed of them by forced sales in an unusual
manner; that he, within the three months
prior to the suspension, received $48 900,
500, 900 of which he has not accounted for
upon his books, except as it appears to have
been received by him; that he received three
days before his suspension $4800, and two
days prior to his suspension $500, neither
Of which sums he has attempted to account
tor, and under oath before you denies any
recollection of the matter.
Gentlemen, if you 6nd these facts to be
satisfactorily proved, and they are drawn
from the defendants own books and state
ments. he not only fraudulently suspended,
but the fraud was of q most glazing and
culpable character.
By the defendant it has been attempted to
be proved that his books were in no manner
worthy of any credit; that, although he kept q
book keeper, his capacity for bookkeeping
was not Of high order; that of the S23, 600
received by the defendant, some $40, 900 was
(though not entered upon the books) paid out
to creditors, and that Of the remaining $l3,-
600, $l2. 900 was paid out to the order.of bills
payable, etc.
faYou will observe that Mr.. Dreyfus, who is
alleged to have used some of this money, was
a relative-is not called as . witness; that
the check which is represented as paying
Mrs. Goldstricken was payable to her or
bearer that the note represented as being
held by her has no Endorsement, and that Of
the large sums which are represented as
having been paid to the order of bills pay
able, not note which should have been
taken up with the checks has been pro-
duced you will give what weight You
think the fact merits to the disar-
rangement of papers consequent upon
the marshals and sheriff 3 seizures, and you
will say from all these circumstances the ex-
PLANTATION attempted to be given by the de-
fendant of the manner in which he disposed
OF the money traced to his hands is consist
emit with the habits of business men, OF has
involved the proofs which would seem to have
been within his reach if he was innocent, and
weighing all these circumstances and all other
facts which you think bear upon the ques-
ton, and will say whether the fraud charged
in the suspension has been proved.
2. You will consider whether, being in
solvent and knowing of his insolvency, he
fraudulently made an agreement with B.
Moses and Isadore Newman whereby he pro-
cured the taking of his property under legal
process with the intent to give q preference to
said Moses and Newman, the same being
creditors, and with the intent to delay and
defeat the operation Of the bankrupt act.
instruct you that, for the purposes of this
trial under the pleadings, it must be assumed
that Moses and Newman are creditors; but l
also instruct you that You have right to fol-
low the history of the debt from it's inception
down to the present time, with view to
gather the motives of the parties thereto.
Levi must have been nsolvent-knowingly
soAand this means that he must have
knowingly been unable to pay his debts in
the ordinary course Of business. I do not
think upon the evidence this admits of con-
troversy. He must have procured the levying
of the executions, j. g., he must have more
than suffered it; he must have voluntarily