Case Name: In re COLLINS
Court: United States District Court for the District of Kentucky
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1868
Citations: 6 F. Cas. 116
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re COLLINS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 6
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
Case No. 3,008.
In re COLLINS.
[1 N. B. R. 551 (Quarto, 153); 2 Am. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 7.]
District Court, D. Kentucky.
1868.
Examination' op Bankkupt—Consultation with Counsel.
In the examination of a bankrupt, he may not consult with his counsel before answering interrogatories, except by permission of the register.
[On certificate of register in bankruptcy.]
I, James M. Fidler, one of the registers of said court in bankruptcy, do hereby certify, that in the course of proceedings in said cause before me, the following question arose, pertinent to the said proceedings: Facts. The bankrupt being duly under examination, was asked the following question by J. M. Fogle, counsel for Ben O’Neal, a creditor, namely: “Will you file the notes as a part of your examination?” John B. Thomas, attorney for the bankrupt, asked permission of the court to consult with and advise with the bankrupt before he answers the question, in which request the bankrupt joined. The attorney for the creditor objected to a consultation, which objection the register sustained. The attorney for the bankrupt insisted that the bankrupt had the right to consult his counsel, in relation to his answers to any, or all the interrogatories proposed to him, before answering the same, and requested that the question be certified to the judge for his decision thereon.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Begister: This statement of facts does not, perhaps, fully justify me in submitting the first of the two following questions for the decision of the judge. But, as I am anxious to have some general rule for my guidance hereafter in examinations of bankrupts under section 26 of the bankrupt act, 1867 [14 Stat. 529], I do not doubt the propriety of submitting the general question. I conceive, then, that the two following questions arise for the decision of the judge, namely: First. May the bankrupt, during his examination, consult counsel, and have his advice, as to the answer to be given to such questions, as may be proposed to him in the course of his examination? Second. Was the register right, in this particular case, in refusing to permit the bankrupt to consult with his counsel before answering the question proposed? The question as to the right of the bankrupt to consult generally with his counsel is very fully discussed by Judge Lowell, United States district court, Massachusetts, in Be Tanner [Case No. 13,-745]. Judge Blatchford, of the United States district court for the southern district of New York, in the Case of Judson [Id. 7,562], has adopted or rather concurred in this opinion of Judge Lowell. The decision of Judge Blatchford in Be Patterson [Id. 10,816], also fully agrees with the opinion of Judge Lowell, above cited. It is agreed, I believe, in all of the cases cited, "that a bankrupt under examination has no right to consult with his counsel except when the magistrate, before whom the examination is conducted, has good cause for allowing it." Thus leaving the whole matter to the discretion of the register. Holding, as I do, that the bankrupt, when under examination, is a witness on the witness stand, "subject to the same rules and privileges as other witnesses," that the examination of the bankrupt before me at chambers must be conducted as if the cause was in progress of trial before the judge of the district court; and that to permit the bankrupt's counsel to advise him, as to the answers he should make to questions propounded to him in the course of his examination, would not only impede the case, but would make it anything but "full, fair, and searching," in that the counsel would in reality be examined instead of the bankrupt. Holding these opinions, I must, of course, hold that the bankrupt ought not to be permitted to consult with his counsel. The second question, was the register right, in this particular case, in refusing to permit the bankrupt to consult with his counsel? The question proposed by the attorney for the creditor, namely: "Will you file those notes as part of your examination?" could not have possibly involved any question requiring the advice of an attorney. The question was asked in regard to notes in the bankrupt's possession, spoken of no less than three times in the course of the examination, and could have been answered without any possible detriment to the interest of the bankrupt. To have permitted a consultation here would have greatly impeded the case, and would have been a virtual admission of the right of the bankrupt and his counsel to consult upon all occasions and at their own pleasure. It may not be improper to state that when this question was asked, the bankrupt had been on the stand under examination for about eight hours, and that the examination had been unnecessarily protracted by the verbosity of the bankrupt.