228 F. 75 | D.N.J. | 1915
The only specification of objections to the bankrupt’s discharge which needs more than a passing consideration is that dealing with his failure to keep books of account or records. It would require a vivid imagination to conclude that payments of small sums from time to time, from wages, on account of overdue board bills, and payments to-materialmen, who were secured by the mechanic’s lien law of New Jersey, were made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the bankrupt’s creditors. Nor can I find any such inconsistency in the bankrupt’s testimony as to warrant a finding that he made a false oath in the bankruptcy proceedings.
The important consideration is, therefore, whether the bankrupt’s failure to keep books of account or more complete records was with an intent to conceal his financial condition. The natural and probable consequence of such failure would be to conceal his financial condition, for manifestly, if there were no books or records from which it could be ascertained, it would be concealed. The Circuit Court of Appeals of this circuit has recently held (In re Janavitz, 219 Fed. 876, 135 C. C. A. 546). in respect to this provision of the Bankruptcy Act that a bankrupt is properly chargeable with intending the natural and probable consequences of his own acts and omissions, but that testimony is competent to refute the presumption. No testimony was offered in this case tú show why the books and more complete records were not kept, which would have been the most direct way to overcome the 'above-mentioned presumption. I do not think, however, that direct evidence is essential to overcome the presumption, but that if, in the absence of such evidence, the court, from all the facts and circumstances, is of the opinion that the bankrupt’s failure to keep books and records was not with intent to conceal his financial condition, then a discharge should not be denied him.
The master’s report will accordingly be confirmed, and the bankrupt granted a discharge.