In the Matter of Jesse H. Robinson, a Bankrupt. Item 8. The charge of $1, for order to show cause and certifying copy for clerk, is disallowed. This service is covered by the $5 allowed in item 7. When the special order of reference on the petition for discharge, authorizing the register to make an order to show cause thereon, comes to the register, the first one day's service which he renders and charges for under item 7, is the making of the order to show cause. The charge of $1 is sought to be upheld under that clause of General Order No. 30, which allows to the register "for every order made where notice is required to be given, and for certifying copy of the same to the clerk, one dollar." But this clause refers only to such an order as is named in General Order No. 8-an order "in any proceeding in which notice is required to be given to either party before the order can be made." The order to show cause, made by the register on a petition for a discharge, is not such an order. Item 9. This is a charge of $2 for application for second and third meetings of creditors. It is reckoned as two applications, one for each meeting, with a charge of $1 for each application, under that clause of section forty-seven which allows $1 for every application for any meeting in any matter under the Act. I think that these meetings may fairly be regarded as having been applied for to the register under General Order No. 25, but, as there was and need be but one application for the two meetings, the charge must be reduced to $1 in the whole. The new rule made by this court, January 23d, 1868, provides that hereafter, in cases of orders to show cause, made according to Form No. 51, on petitions of bankrupts for discharges from their debts, no meeting of creditors, except the first, shall be ordered or had, unless some assets have come to the hands of the assignee, but where, in any such case, any assets have come to the hands of the assignee, then the order to show cause shall In the Matter of Jesse H. Robinson, a Bankrupt. contain a provision, under General Order No. 25, for the holding of the second and third meetings of creditors, and for notices thereof. This rule was made upon the ground that General Order No. 25 does not, when read in connection with sections twenty-seven and twentyeight of the Act, require the second and third meetings of creditors to be held in cases where there are no assets, there being no necessity for either of such meetings, unless there are assets to be divided, and neither of such meetings being a necessary preliminary requisite to the discharge of the bankrupt. Item 10. This is the assignee's return, Form No. 35. The objection taken to this item is the same that is taken to item 2, in respect to the written matter inserted in a printed form. The objection is overruled. The return is a deposition, and the register has a right, under section forty-seven, to charge, for taking it, the fees allowed by law for taking a deposition. Whether the charge of 65 cents is the proper amount, on this basis, I have not the means of deciding. Item 11. This charge of $5 is for one day's service sitting in chambers on the return of the order to show cause. As such, it is allowed. It is a service rendered under the special order of reference made on the petition for a discharge, and is allowable for the reasons set forth in respect to item 7. It is not allowed on any idea that the order to show cause in Form No. 51 is a special order. Item 12. This charge of $6, for the second and third meetings of creditors, must be reduced to $3. Section forty-seven allows $3 for each day in which a meeting is held, and these meetings were held on one and the same day. The allowance is not for each meeting, but for each day in which any meeting or meetings is or are held. Item 13. This is a charge of $5 for one day's service examining the bankrupt and the proceedings, and mak In the Matter of Nathan A. Son, a Bankrupt. ing a certificate of conformity. It is allowed for the same reasons for which item 7 and item 11 are allowed. It is a service under the special order of reference made on the petition for discharge, which requires the register to certify to the court whether the bankrupt has in all things conformed to his duty under the Act, and has in all things conformed to the requirements of the Act. In ordinary cases, three days' services, and only three, are chargeable under this special order of reference-one day for the examination of papers and making the order to show cause, one day for sitting in chambers on the return of the order, and one day for finally examining all the papers, and making a certificate of conformity. So far as that order of reference authorizes or requires the register to pass the last examination of the bankrupt in case there is no opposition, it is not a special order, because he is authorized and required to render that service by section four of the Act and Form No. 4, which is a general order. Item 14. This charge of $2 for a discharge without opposition, is allowed. It is expressly given to the register by section forty-seven. The result is, that the items objected to, amounting to $41.50, are allowed at $26.45. F. C. Nye, for the bankrupt. FEBRUARY, 1868. IN THE MATTER OF NATHAN A. SON, A BANK RUPT. VAGUE SPECIFICATIONS. Specifications of objections to a discharge must not be vague and general. If they are such, they furnish no ground for refusing a discharge. In the Matter of Nathan A. Son, a Bankrupt. In this case, a creditor filed five specifications of the grounds of his opposition to the discharge of the bankrupt. They were as follows: 1. That the bankrupt has concealed part of his effects and his books relating thereto, and has not delivered to the assignee all the property belonging to him at the time of presenting his petition, with intent to defraud his creditors. 2. That, since the passage of the Act, he has made fraudulent transfers of his property, and has lost portions of his property in gaming, and has admitted false and fictitious debts against his estate. 3. That he has not, subsequently to the passage of the Act, kept proper books of account. 4. That he has, in contemplation of becoming a bankrupt, made transfers for the purpose of preferring creditors, and for the purpose of preventing his property from coming into the hands of his assignee, or of being distributed in satisfaction of his debts. 5. That he has been guilty of fraud in other respects, contrary to the true intent of the Act, and has, since its passage, mutilated his books or securities. S. E. Swain, for the bankrupt. Merchant, Conable & Elliott, for the creditors. BLATCHFORD, J. Nothing could well be more general than these allegations. They are merely the language of section twenty-nine of the Act. They are all of them so vague that it is impossible for the court or the bankrupt to ascertain from them what specific acts or omission are relied on as grounds for withholding a discharge. The case stands as if there were no opposition to the discharge and no specifications filed, and, it appearing that the bankrupt has in all things conformed to his duty under the Act, a discharge is granted to him. In the Matter of Charles G. Patterson, a Bankrupt. FEBRUARY, 1868. IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES G. PATTERSON, A BANKRUPT. FRAUDULENT DEBT.-JUDGMENT.-ARREST. Where a judgment by default was rendered against a bankrupt in a State Court, on a complaint which showed that the debt, which the suit was brought to recover, was contracted by fraud: Held, That the question, whether the debt represented by the judgment was created by the fraud of the bankrupt, was concluded by the judgment. That, under the thirty-third section of the Bankruptcy Act, the judgment would not be affected by the discharge, any more than the debt which it represented. That the bankrupt, therefore, was not exempt from arrest on an execution issued on the judgment in question. On the 8th of November, 1866, one Shepard recovered a judgment against the bankrupt, in the Superior Court of the city of New York, for $815.99, on his default for want of an answer, the summons and complaint in the action having been served on him personally, on the 8th of May, 1866, in the city of New York. The complaint set forth that, on the 9th of April, 1858, Shepard advanced to the bankrupt $500, for the express purpose of buying and paying for some goods, to be shipped to another person, and the bankrupt received that sum from Shepard in a fiduciary capacity, as the agent of Shepard, to buy, pay for, and ship the goods, and agreed to collect the bill for the goods and refund the money to Shepard; and that the bankrupt did not use the money for that purpose, but fraudulently misapplied it, and had never refunded it. On the 25th of June, 1867, the bankrupt filed his petition in bankruptcy, and was adjudicated a bankrupt on the 12th of September, 1867. He now represented to the court that, on the 29th of January, 1868, Shepard issued to the sheriff of the city and county of |