Baker v. Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co.

• Decision Date: 02 February 1915
• Docket Number: 1303.
• Citation: 220 F. 657
• Parties: BAKER v. BISHOP-BABCOCK-BECKER CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

220 F. 657

BAKER v. BISHOP-BABCOCK-BECKER CO. et al.

No. 1303.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

February 2, 1915

Joseph M. Sanders and Lucius J. Holland, both of Bluefield, W.Va (Sanders & Crockett, of Bluefield, W. Va., on the brief), for appellant.

D. E French, of Bluefield, W. Va., and R. E. Scott, of Richmond Va. (Russell S. Ritz and French & Easley, all of Bluefield W. Va., on the brief), for appellees.

Before KNAPP and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and WADDILL, District Judge.

WADDILL District Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, denying a discharge to the bankrupt, the appellant. The facts are briefly that in October, 1911, the bankrupt and L. A. Jaffee formed a copartnership for the purpose of conducting a news and cigar stand at the Altamont Hotel, Bluefield, and also a news, cigar, and soda fountain stand in the L. Kaufman Building, Bluefield; the latter business being known as the 'Idle Hour.' The copartnership continued a few months only, and in February, 1912, Baker bought out his partner's interest, and continued business in his own name until the 8th of April, 1912, when he filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy. The case was regularly proceeded with, W. C. Pollock selected as trustee, and on the 11th of March, 1913, the bankrupt made his application for discharge.

On the return day of the notice to show cause against the granting of the same, certain creditors, the appellees herein, noted their appearances, and filed specifications of objection to the granting of the discharge, whereupon, pursuant to the rules of practice of the district (section 1, rule 44, of Rules of Practice of the District Court), the matters arising upon said specifications were referred to H. B. Lee, Esq., referee in bankruptcy, as special master, to report upon the same. Six specifications of objection were filed, only one of which is necessary to be set out herein, namely, the first, that the bankrupt--

'within four months prior to his adjudication in bankruptcy, and while a bankrupt, he knowingly and fraudulently concealed from the trustee certain property, consisting of bedroom furniture, located immediately overhead in the second floor of the building where he conducted one of his places of business, which property the said bankrupt used for his private purposes in private apartments occupied by him, which property belonged to his estate in bankruptcy, and is worth probably the sum of $75, with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors.'

The referee and special master duly made and filed his report certifying that only the testimony of the bankrupt and that of the trustee of his estate had been adduced before him, which he caused to be taken down stenographically and returned with his report, and he found and certified to the court that there was no testimony whatever to support two of the specifications of objection, and only testimony as to the first charge herein set forth, stated in three different specifications, and another regarding a certain diamond ring set forth in another specification, and that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the objection to the discharge as to either of the four specifications concerning which some testimony was introduced, and he recommended accordingly that the bankrupt be granted his discharge. To this action of the referee and special master, the appellees excepted, and asked that the District Court review and revise the same. The...