172 F. 523 | S.D.N.Y. | 1909
I have read all the testimony taken on the discharg-e proceedings and nearly all that taken at the first meeting of creditors, and I agree with the learned master that the discharge must be granted, so that I shall confirm the report and grant a discharge.
In regard to the contempt proceedings, however, I shall make a somewhat different disposition. The master did not believe the bankrupt, and I am not inclined to believe him either. His testimony is full of misstatements, and, while perhaps some of these are to be accounted for by his ignorance of English, it seems hardly possible that some of them do not constitute willful misstatements of fact. Especially does it seem that his testimony that the title to all property was taken in his wife’s name must have been deliberately false. It is extremely unlikely that he should have innocently been mistaken about these facts, or that he misunderstood the questions. The testimony was not immaterial, because he was concerned to show that he had never taken any property in his own name. That would have been the best corroboration of his version of the transactions which necessitated all the property being his wife’s. Had it been known, as it afterwards was shown, that he had been taking property in his single name or in the joint names of his wife and himself, his story required more explanation. It -is quite true that the explanation did subsequently satisfy the master, but that has nothing to do with the truth of his testimony, when he gave it,, which is the question here. Now, the bankrupt’s perjury in the proceedings for his discharge would not be a ground for depriving him of the discharge itself, at least as I understand the statute.. It would indeed be seldom that, when he had perjured himself, the court could be persuaded of enough of the truth of his story to grant him a discharge, but in this case that unusual thing may have happened, and the master has been satisfied that the money-transferred to Mrs. Kretsch was, in fact, hers. As I have said, J: agree with the master, despite Kretsch’s misstatements during the hearing.
Ret.the'objecting creditor prepare an order for such a reference as I have indicated, with the other provisions mentioned above. I will not sign the discharge until the termination of the contempt proceeding.