amination. Of the ex- tings in the presence of his assignees, or any person appointed by them, and bring with him, each time, any two persons to assist him. And the assignees cannot refuse the bankrupt such an inspection of his books, whatever his object may be; for neither they, nor (as it seems) even the Lord Chancellor, have any discretion either to permit or refuse such inspection. (1) If the bankrupt is in prison, he may, as has been already stated (2), be brought before the commissioners to be examined; and the assignees may appoint any persons to attend him from time to time, and to produce to him his books, papers, and writings in order to prepare an abstract Bankrupt of his accounts, and a statement to shew the particulars of his estate and effects previous to his final examination and statement discovery thereof, a copy of which the bankrupt is required to deliver to the assignees ten days, at least, before his last examination. must de liver in a of his ac counts. Bound to sioners. Where the bankrupt's books were in the office of a Master of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, and the assignees required the production of them, the expense of procuring them was ordered to be paid out of the estate. (3) The bankrupt is bound to answer all the questions of answer all the commissioners relating to his property; and the whole questions of commis- of his conduct and behaviour in his dealings with it is subject to the strictest inquiry; for it is the duty of the commissioners to take care of the interests of all parties, and to examine the bankrupt fully, as to every matter connected with the disposal of his estate or effects. (4) And it seems to be contemplated by the legislature, that the bankrupt shall furnish to the commissioners at his last examination some written disclosure or discovery of his estate and effects; the uniform practice has been, certainly, conformable to this construction, it being usual for the bankrupt to give (1) Ex parte Ross, 1 Rose, 33. 17 Ves. 374. (2) Ante, page 508.; and see Section 119. (3) Ex parte Cridland, 2 Rose, 164. 3 Ves. & B. 94. (4) Nerot v. Wallace, 5 T.R. 17. Janson v. Wilson, Doug. 257. Taylor's case, 8 Ves. 531. amination. Lord of limit ex in then some account in writing to the commissioners. Of the exThis account should specify what debts are due from him, and what effects he then possesses, in addition to debts which are due to him,-what he has expended,-what his capital was, and how that has been laid out, so as to account for the reason of his becoming a bankrupt. (1) The Lord Chancellor has, however, the power in his dis- As to cretion to limit the examination of the commissioners to power particular points, though such a power does not appear to Chanhave been exercised in the examination of the bankrupt; cellor to nor, indeed, does there seem any great necessity for the in- amination. terposition of the Chancellor's authority in this respect. For if the bankrupt objects to any question, he may demur to the interrogatories, and the Lord Chancellor will then judge of the question upon a petition. (2) And, if the commissioners are dissatisfied with any of the bankrupt's answers, and commit him in consequence, the Lord Chancellor, or any other of the superior tribunals, can in that case, upon habeas corpus, decide both upon the propriety of the question and the answer. Lord Hardwicke, in one case (3), made an order for limiting the examination of a person summoned before them (who was the mother of the bankrupt) to the point of the bankrupt's trading; but, in another case, he refused to restrain the commissioners from asking certain questions of a person so summoned. (4) The examination of the bankrupt is not to be restrained, because his answers may subject him to certain penalties, which he has incurred by his conduct in particular transactions (5); and it has been said that he cannot refuse to answer the inquiries of the commissioners, although his answers may tend to shew that he has committed a criminal act. (6) But he cannot, certainly, object to answer a question, because (1) Per Abbott C. J. Davie v. Mitford, 4 B. & A. 365. (2) Ex parte Meymot, 1 Atk. 199. (3) Ex parte Parsons, 1 Atk. 204. (4) Ex parte Bland, 1 Atk. 205. (5) Ex parte Meymot, supra. Ex parte Barr, 1 C. B. L. 437. (6) Ex parte Cossens, Buck, 531. As to compelling an answer from bank rupt, which would cri minate himself. amination. Of the ex- the answer would tend to establish an act of bankruptcy. (1) Nor can he refuse to answer the inquiries of the commissioners, on the ground that the creditors can derive no benefit from the examination (2), or that he intends to dispute the commission. (3) But, if the question put to him be, whether or not he has done an act clearly of a criminal nature, he may refuse to answer it. Therefore, where a petition prayed, that the creditors might be at liberty to examine the bankrupt, whether he, or any person in trust for him, or for his benefit, had received, or were to receive, any sum of money, or other valuable consideration, for his having resigned, or as an inducement to resign, the office of town-clerk of the city of Bristol, the petition was dismissed. (4) Assignees have no power to stop the examina tion as to certain points. The assignees, too, have no power by an agreement with the bankrupt, or any other person, (though made with the consent of all the creditors) to stop the commissioners from examining the bankrupt as to certain points; - for the public, as well as the creditors, have a right to know how the bankrupt has disposed of his property. The creditors are only interested, as far as respects the payment of their debts; but the public are interested in knowing, whether the bankrupt ought to be restored to his former credit by obtaining his certificate. Therefore, where an agreement was made by a friend of the bankrupt, to pay a sum of money to the assignees, in consideration that they would forbear to proceed in the examination then about to be taken before the commissioners, with respect to certain sums of money, for which the bankrupt had not accountedand that the commissioners would forbear and desist from taking his examination to these points, — such agreement was held void, as being contrary to the object and policy of the bankrupt law. (5) (5) Nerot v Wallace, 3 T.R. 17. But an agreement, by a friend of the bankrupt, to pay all the cre ditors their full debts, in consider SECTION III. Of the Bankrupt's Answers. admit of answers, general answers will not be sufficient. case. The bankrupt being, as has been already stated (1), When bound to answer fully any questions put to him by the questions commissioners, touching any matter to which he may be full and lawfully examined, when he is required, therefore, to particular account for the disposal and application of large sums of money, and questions are put to him, which call for, and will admit of, full and particular answers, general answers will not be sufficient. For the better illustration of what is, and what is not, an insufficient answer in this respect, two or three cases will be given at somewhat greater length, than the scope of this work has in general admitted of: John Perrot upon his examination had the following Perrot's question put to him: "As you admit, that you have spent "the last week previous to your examination with Mr. Maynard (one of your assignees) to settle and adjust "your accounts, and to draw up a state thereof, to enable "you to close such your examination; and do likewise admit, "that upon such state thereof it appears, that, after giving "you credit for all sums of money paid by you, and "making you debtor for all goods sold and delivered to "you, from your first entering into trade to the time of your bankruptcy, there is a deficiency of the sum of “ 13,5137. ; — give a true and particular account of what "is become of the same, and how and in what manner you “have applied and disposed thereof." To this question the bankrupt refused to give any other than the following general answer: "On goods sold this last year I have lost 66 ation that they would not proceed any further under the commission, and would join in an application to the Lord Chancellor to have it superseded, was held legal, and not contrary to the policy of the (1) Ante, pages 149. 515. answers. Of the upwards of 2000l.; and by mournings I have lost upbankrupt's wards of 10007.; and for nine or ten years I have (and "I am sorry to say it) been extremely extravagant, and "spent large sums of money." The Court of King's Bench held this to be a proper question, and the answer very insufficient (1) and unsatisfactory. The bankrupt, however, was afterwards (at his own instance) again brought before the commissioners; and, upon the same question being proposed to him, he particularised a woman upon whom he had spent 5000l. from December 1758 to December 1759, and also specified the times of sending and giving it to her; but stated that no person was privy to this, and that the woman, whose name was Sarah Powell, otherwise Taylor, was dead, as he had heard; that she knew him to be a bankrupt, and never returned the money or any part of it to him; and that he gave it to her for her maintenance and expenses, and not for a fund for her future support, or wherefrom he could draw any advantage; that he knew in the year 1759, when he gave and remitted those sums to her, " that he was not worth any thing, and "that he was remitting to her the money of his creditors:" that he was acquainted with her five or six years, but he could not recollect what he gave her, or spent upon her during the second, third, or fourth years of their acquaintance; nor did he keep any further account or memorandum thereof, either in those years, or in the year 1759, but that he spoke from memory only; that he did not take any this money from his banker, but always took it from Mr. Thomson (since deceased), who used to sell goods for him; and that all letters between him and this woman, except one or two, were burnt or destroyed : the Court held this answer also incomplete and unsatisfactory, and ordered the bankrupt to be remanded. (2) of A bankrupt, however, may answer to the best of his remembrance and belief; and if he swears that he cannot (1) Rex v. Perrot, 2 Burr. 1122. 1215.; see also Langhorn's case, 2 Blac. 919. |