In re Shear

• Decision Date: 13 June 1911
• Citation: 188 F. 677
• Parties: In re SHEAR.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

188 F. 677

In re SHEAR.

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

June 13, 1911

Dolson & Dolson, for bankrupt.

Carleton H. White, for trustee.

HAZEL District Judge.

Referee Hamlin has certified to me as judge of the court of bankruptcy, pursuant to section 41 of the bankrupt act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 556 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p 3437)), that the bankrupt, after taking the prescribed oath refused to be examined according to law, in that on the examination before him he gave willful, evasive, and false testimony, and that he was guilty of contempt of court for refusing to be examined according to law. The asserted false oath was made during the course of the examination of the bankrupt (section 7, subd. 9), and related to the conduct of his business and whereabouts of his property. The matter now comes regularly before me on petition and order for summary hearing.

I have carefully perused and considered the evidence submitted by the certificate of the referee and the answering affidavit of the bankrupt, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the bankrupt willfully testified falsely and evasively. The power of the judge to summarily punish for contempt for misbehavior and giving false testimony is undeniable.

In re Fellerman (D.C.) 149 F. 244; In re Bick (C.C.) 155 F. 908; In re Singer (D.C.) 174 F 208; In re Schulman (D.C.) 167 F. 237; In re Gordon (D.C.) 167 F. 239; In re Gitkin (D.C.) 164 F. 71; In re Bronstein (D.C.) 182 F. 349.

The disobedience certified is one of the gravest known to the administration of justice, and the evils of false swearing in our courts, and specially in bankruptcy proceedings by bankrupts in their endeavor to conceal property, is so great as to require the severest condemnation and punishment in a plain case. The bankrupt has not only been evasive and disingenious in his replies to questions properly put to him before the referee, but in utter disregard of the truth and solemnity of the proceeding he has asseverated untruths and given false testimony, the falsity of which is thought directly established. Abundant opportunity was given him to explain or purge himself, by withdrawing his false testimony, and to testify truthfully. He did not do so, and therefore he is adjudged in contempt of court. The contention that the bankrupt is entitled to trial by jury is untenable. In re Debs, 158 U.S. 594, 15 Sup.Ct. 900, 39 L.Ed. 1092.

The...