a 78' . FEDERAL REPORTER. �transactions, to show that he did not furnish the money, or. if lie did, that it was done at a time when lie had a right to furnish it. And it may possibly be that he can show this. As the evidence stands, however, at present, the register thinks that Mr. Warne stands in the light of one whose property is retained under cover of his faraily, and that the speciflcation must be sus- lained." �Another specification against the discharge was that the bankrupt had not kept proper books of account. Upon the final examination the bankrupt swore that he had not kept such books, but he .after- wards found a properly kept cash-book, and other books, from wbich an expert accountant said he could prepare proper accounts, etc. Upon the petition of the bankrupt the register reopened the case, admitted this testimony, and reported to the court conformity with the bankrupt act in all respects except in this : that the bank- rupt had not delivered the horse, phaeton, and harness which were claimed by the bankrupt's daughter. Both the creditors and the bankrupt excepted to the action and report of the register, and the creditors filed additional specifications at bar against the diseharge, on the ground that the bankrupt had aworn falsely when he said that he had not kept proper books of account. �Hon. W. W. Schuyler and Sharp e Alleman, for bankrupt. �W. D. Luckenbach, for creditors. �Butler, D. J. The register finds that the bankrupt was guilty of fraud, in failing to deliver to his assignee a horse, phaeton, and har- ness, as charged in the specification, and that he is not, therefore, entitled to a discharge. �It is probable the register is right in finding that this property belonged to the bankrupt, and should have been returned to the assignee; but we cannot accept his conclusion that the failure to return it, standing alone, shows such fraud as forbids the bankrupt's dis- charge. �The most reasonable inference from the facts is that he did not know it should be returned, — that he believed it to be his daugh- ter's. Accepting the creditor's allegation that he had givenit to her, it was hers as respects everybody but creditors. To hold that he was familiar with the law on the subject, and consequently knew that the property should be returned, would not be justifiable. At jnost, his failure to return it should be regarded as a mistake. As respects the question of discharge, such a mistake is unimportant. The trans- fer to the daughter may have amounted to constructive fraud; but the failure to deliver to the assignee, through want of knowledge,. ��� �
