Evening journal., 1913-08-09

serNation Of tho witnesses, their demea-
nor and their manner of testifying, TO
form a reliable opinion of the weight Of
the testimony than the court. not enjoy
ing such an advantage Hence the find
ings of the master even where the refer
ence is not by the consent Of the parties
are prima facie correct Tilghman vs..
Proctor. l25 L. $. 1875; Medsker vs..
Bonebrake, l0s L. S. IS.
But It is insisted by the counsel
for the receivers that inasmuch as
the receivers Wallace and Frank W.
Todd have given oral evidence touch
ing a number Of material and inn
portant matters and transactions, and
have not been directly contradicted
or discredited by other oral evidence,
their statements should have been
deemed by the master absolutely true
and that he should have treated the
case In so far as testified to by
those witnesses without direct con-
tradiction as one of law and not of
fact There is a palpable distinction
recognized by the authorities and
founded in reason between the force
of the findings of a master on ques-
tions purely Of law, on the one
hand, and, on the other, questions
purely of fact, or of mixed law and
fact This case is not included in
the former class; for while the re-
ceivers Wallace and Todd have not
been directly and categorically con-
tradicted with respect to a number
OF facts and transactions of ma
Htf hn
of other witnesses, their testimony
with respect to such facts and trans
actions has been shaden and largely
dicrediited by divers proofs in the
case, including not only papers and
documents, but circumstantial evil
dence in the oral testimony Of other
witnesses. Not only so, but in
number of instances the circum-
stance that the books kept under the
supervision of the receivers, and of
the contents OF which Wallace and
Todd must be presumed to have had
knowledge, fail to disclose facts and
conditions testified to by them which,
had they existed. would or should
have been disclosed in the entries
therein. further tends to render their
testimony unsatisfactory and ques-
tionable. Nor does It necessarily fol-
low that where oral testimony on
one side of a case is wholly uncon-
tradcted II must be accepted as true
and the case treated as one of pure
law. For those so testifying may
either he mistaken or testify falsely.
THAT probability or improbability of
their statements must he taken into
tradcted statement that the moon IS
made Of green cheese, or that a wit
ness had run a mile in a minute,
cannot establish the truth Of either
affirmation as matter of law or, in
deed, of fact So. a plaintiff who
gives uncontradicted testimony In
support of a claim asserted by him
is not as a matter of law necessarily
entitle dto recover. do not per-
ceive any ground on which this case
can be expected from the general
rule that a masters findings on
disputed questions of fact are pre-
sumptively correct and should not
lightly be set aside by the court
But we're It otherwise, the evidence
I'm connection with the briefs of
counsel and an independent eXamina-
ton Of The law OF the case have
satisfied me that the findings. con-
clusions and recommendation Of the
master we're proper and that his re-
port should not be disturbed
Keeping OF Clear Records.
There are certain prominent fea-
lures Of the case strongly tending
TO establish neglect and mismanage-
ment of the estate OF the steel com
pany by the receivers. In the first
place. from the manner in which
they kept their accounts il is ap-
parent that they did not adequately
realize the obligations they had as
sumed as trustees for the bondhold-
ers and general creditors OF the steel
company. If there was one duty
more incumbent upon them than an
other II was to keep or have their
books and vouchers kept in such a
manner as 10 furnish an ineligible
and perspicuous account of their acts
and transactions in order that the
bondholders and general creditors,
as we'll as the court. might at any
time as occasion required promptly
land readily ascertain the true cOndi-
tion of affairs. But this to an in
excusable extent they failed to do.
II is true that in the seventh para
graph of the original order of their
appointment December 10, 1904. they
were required TO make and file
Quarterly returns of their receipts
and disbursements during their con-
ltinuance in office" but in the same
lsection Il was also provided:
That said receivers are hereby di-
lrected and required to keep proper
books of accounts wherein shall be
STATED the earnings. expenses, re.
lceipts and disbursements OF the said
trust under this order OF their ap-