Putnam patriot., 1912-01-12
NO 2
Arnold Bankruptcy Hearing

hS Vh AhC HtNtttth UT nest NJ. Arnold for a discharge from bankruptcy, which was several times postponed, was begun before Referee A. J Bowen in Willimantic Saturday. Arnold went into bankruptcy in No vember, 1910, with liabilities of s7O0,0oO and assets estimated at that time of about S75,000.
 Attorney Charles E. Searls repre- seated the petitioner and Attorneys Charles l.. Torrey of Putnam and Samuel B. Harvey of Willimantic rep resented the objecting creditors. It was thought that the hearing would last three days and the referee consent ed to come to Putnam this Thursday to continue the matter.
 There are three reasons given by the obiecting creditors why the bankrupt should not be given his discharge from bankruptcy. One of them Is that "with the intent to conceal his finan- eial condition said Ernest NJ. Arnold failed to keep books of account and re- cords, from which such financial con- dition might be ascertained.' The second objection was that "sub- sequent to the first day of the four menths immediately preceding the fil- ing of the petition, to wit, on the 3d day of June, 1910, said Ernest NJ. Arr mold transferred or permitted to be transferred seventeen tracts of land to Clinton $. Andem of Thompson, to whom Arnold was indebted to the amount of S23,300, with tine intent to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors"
 The third objection Is that on June 6, 1910, Arnold transferred or caused to be transferred to Frank F. Russell Jaw partner of Charles k. Searls, who rep resents Arnold in his petition for dis charge, three tracts of land with in- tent to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors" Arnold 1t is alleged was indebted to Russell to the amount of | 5000.
 To the first statement Attorney Searls raised an objection saying that t did not clearly specify anything which would raise any issue. The pe- titioner in this matter from the spcci- tication had no knowledge of what he would have to answer to. He claimed that the specification did not say what books, and if there were any books, what they should have been. There were other things which the petitioner was allowed to have specified so that he could be prepared to meet and an- swer them. He said further that Ar- mold had turned over to the trustee ll0 books of accounts so that the specifica- tion that he did not keep any books fell down.
 Attorney Torrey in answer to this said thrt Attorney Searls misconstrued the issue. The question here was not whether Arnold had kept any books, but that he did not keep sbooks from the nature of which could be seen what his financial condition was. Tine lf0 volumes which he had given the trus- tee did not give the trustee or any ono else any inkling .as to what Arnold's financial condition was and what was done with the money
 Referee Bowen took the matter un- der consideration and told the lawyers to proceed with the other features of the specifications of objection.
 Arnold was the first witness and his examination W IS similar to that which he has undergone several times during proceedings by the trustee 10 recover assets for the estate.
 His examination by Attorney Torrey began with his going into business, and covered his transactions, statement of liabilities and assets as brought out at other hearings. and previously pub lished.
 Attorney Torrey said he wanted an inventory of the bonds andsstocks tn the Dankrupt's possession on June l. 1910, in addition to the securities emu merated in the schedule of assets. Mir. Arnold said he could give 1t st she next meeting.