Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1904-05-27
Federal Judge Dole
On Bankruptcy Case

Federal Judge Dole yesterday after.
noon rendered a decision In which he
refused 10 dismiss the case OF Hof.
schlaeger Co. vs.. Young Nap, who was
restrained from departing from the
Territory in bankruptcy proceeding.
One of the grounds relied on for dis.
missal was that the respondent was a
farmer. The Court says:
"The respondent must, in the nature
Of things, be in full possession Of eyi.
dence to disprove the negative aver.
ment that he Is not chiefly engaged in
farming or the tillage of the soil, II 1t
is not true. and the petitioner is un
likely to be in possession of such proof
He has indeed given some evidence
tending to show that respondent is no,
chiefly engaged In farming or the till
age of the soil. The burden Of proof
is now on the respondent"
Several letters are shown as illus
trating respondents Intentions. The
Court says:
THE expressions of these letters
and the absence Of any intimation In
any of the letters produced. of any
recognition Of the debt which accrued
lftcr the incorporation as distin.
lished in respondents mind from the
debt to the partnership are convincing
to me that respondent fully recognized
the old debt and that the application of
the payments referred to, to the pay,
ment thereof, was fully In accord with
his wishes and expectations. | think II
can be said from his letters to peti.
toner that the debtors application Of
the payments In question was first to
the settlement of the partnership nc
count. If | am wrong in this, then
there being no evidence of his appli.
cation of these payments, the creditor
had the right to make the application,
and chose to apply the payments to
the partnership account. In either
case the respondent was owing the pc.
toner at the date of the petition, 50
far as at present appears.
las to the fourth ground OF the mo.
ton. |. e., failure to prove an act of
bankruptcy, the act Of bankruptcy re.
lied on is concealing and removing on
the part of the respondent, u portion
Of his property with intent to hinder,
delay and defraud his creditors.
"He admits In his answer that he la
indebted to persons within the Terri
tory other than petitioner to an aggre
gate amount OF over one thousand dol
lars. Under these circumstances and
the fact that the Court has found In
this case that he is indebted to the pc
! tltioner. the removal of his property
as alleged and shown was a transac
ton which, in the absence of explana
ton, was in fraud Of his creditors, and
the burden OF proof Is upon him to sat
isfactorily explain such admitted re
moval of his property from the Juris
diction of this court. In the case oi
Fulllngs VS.. Fullings Federal Case No
515la), the Court said In relation tc
the concealment Of bonds by the re
spondent just previous to filing a peti
ton In bankruptcy:
"'In the absence of all contradictory
proof. have no hesitation In holdins
that the deposit of the bonds will
Coleman was a device OF the bankrup
to get the property out OF the reach o
bis creditors
in such case as the one before thu
court a petitioning creditor cannot g
into the question OF what the goods are
or their exact ownership. Of the ques
ton of legal exemption OF any Of thes'
goods for any delay Is likely to deprive
him OF all opportunity of keeping tn
same within the Jurisdiction. The cir
cumstances being suspicious 1t Is 70
the respondent who has the full infor
nation in regard to every point con
corning such goods, to make such eS
PLANTATION as to their attempted remov
oil as shall show that he was acting le
gally and without fraudulent intentio
oward his creditors.
"The motion to dismiss is overruled.