BfiOWN V, THE JEFFBKSOK COUNTY NAT. BANK. 271 �after date, and were indorsed by four several persdns. This shows what Mr. Camp knew on the twelfth of February. He does net con- tradict it. It shows that he, and, therefore, the bank, had abundantly reasonable cause to believe, on the sixth of April, that the Cadwells were insolvent. H. V. Cadwell testifies as follows : �" McCartin & Williams had been our attorneys for some years ; that is, for the flrm. They had charge of our collections in all matters of any impor- tance. They were our attorneys during our anancial embarrassments during the spring of 1877. He advised and consulted with them in relation to our aflairs during the whole time of our anancial troubles. We coimselled with them about our afCairs before we were sued by the bank. Wetalked andcon- feired with them about our embarrassment before that tirae. We adviaed with them as to what was best to be done. About that time I talked with Mr. Williams in regard to bankruptcy, but whether it was before or after we were sued by the bank 1 would not state. One or both of the firm of McCar- tin & Williams advised bankruptcy." �Whether this conversation about bantruptoy was before or after March 16th, it was, necessarily, before April 6th. If McCartin & Williams believed that the Cadwells were subjects for bankruptcy, they knew they were insolvent, and that a aeizure of their goods on judgment by the bank would be preferential, and a fraud on the statute. H. V. Cadwell testifies that during the time hetween the bringing of the bank's suits and the sixth of April, McCartin & Will- iams were in consultation with him about his matters and advised with him, and in the main he followed their advice; and does. not remember that he took counsel anywhere else. He also testifies that after the bank's suits were brought he told McCartin & Williams that the debtors intended to let the judgments mature before the assignment should be made, so that a lien should first be got by exe- cution, and that he so arranged it with McCartin & Williams. They appeared as attorneys for the Cadwells on the return-day of th^ order to show cause in the bankruptcy petition. Ail the evidence goes to show that McCartin & Williams, as representing the bank, were acting in concert with the debtors to secure the preference for the bank, and that, with the kriowledge and assent of McCartin & Williams, the debtors, knowing that McCartin & Williams were attor- neys for the bank, and were seeking such preference for the bank, acted wholly under the advice of McCartin & Williams, and took such course as would secure such preference, byrabstaining from making an assignment, and by concealing from Mr. Crouse and Mr. Brown knowledge of the suits by the bank, and by refusing information, ��� �
