In re Knaszak

• Decision Date: 08 February 1907
• Docket Number: 1,342.
• Citation: 151 F. 503
• Parties: In re KNASZAK.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

151 F. 503

In re KNASZAK.

No. 1,342.

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

February 8, 1907

M. W Casey, for bankrupt.

Charles Newton, for objecting creditor.

HAZEL District Judge.

The questions presented to the court for decision arise upon the application of the bankrupt to set aside the report and findings of William H. Hotchkiss, special master, to whom the petition for discharge and specifications of objections thereto were referred, and for an order discharging the bankrupt upon exceptions to the report duly filed.

It was not error for the special master to have reserved decision as to the admissibility of the testimony under the insufficient specifications. His duty was to take and report the evidence in aid of this court, and return the same, together with the rulings as to its admissibility. In re Lipset (D.C.) 119 F. 379. His tentative rulings do not appear to have been prejudicial to the bankrupt, especially as the objections were passed upon before the close of the case and exception reserved to him. At the hearing, counsel for the bankrupt repeatedly insisted that a decision be made upon his preliminary objection to the specifications but he did not take advantage of rule 12 of the bankruptcy rules for this district, which plainly indicates the practice in this jurisdiction, as applied to a defective or insufficient specification filed in opposition to the bankrupt's discharge. The rule substantially states that upon notice to the opposing creditor the specifications may be made more definite and certain by the court, or the bankrupt may demur to them or move their dismissal, and in default thereof such specifications shall be deemed sufficient to present the question suggested thereby. But, irrespective of this rule the omission by the opposing creditor to allege that the acts complained of were knowingly and fraudulently committed by the bankrupt was seasonably supplied by amendment before the evidence was closed. In re Pierce (D.C.) 103 F. 64; In re Bemis (D.C.) 104 F. 672. This court undoubtedly had the right to amend the specifications at any stage of the case. It has even been held that under certain circumstances they may be amended to conform to the proofs. In re Lesser (D.C.) 108 F. 205.

The objection that the deposition of the bankrupt was not authenticated, and that after transcription it was not read over to him or signed by him is unavailing, because the objection...