UNITED STATES %JACESOir. Cf03 �yet that the said Noah Jackson, after the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy respecting him, to-wit, on the first day of November, 1876, at Hillsborough, in New Hampshire, did, with intent to defraud hia creditors, etc., wilfuUy and fraudulently coneeal from his assignee, and bas continued to coneeal from him, a large part of his property and effects reqaired by law to be described in the inventory by law required to be filed, no part of whioh was exempt or belonged to the defendant after said proceedings were com- meneed, to-wit: "did unlawfully, etc., on said first day of November, coneeal, etc., • * * [giving a full description of the herses, harness, etc., with values added, at the end of the description,] and ail then and there of the property of him, the said Noah Jackson. " �The objection is that the last line in quotation marks refers to the first of November, and alleges that the goods were then the property of the defendant, instead of saying that they were so at the moment of the commencement of the proceeding. If they were his in November, they should not have been given to the assignee, who was entitled only to what was the bankrupt's property in Mar&h. �As a criticism upon the allegations of time, I find the objection a sound one. Upon a careful exàitiiaation of the indictment, which consiste of one very long sentence, I understand it to allege that the defendant bas concealed property which was of a kind required to be described in his inventory; that it was a great part of what should have corne to the possession of the assignee, from which we are to infer that it belonged to the bankrupt on the third day of March, the day when the proceedings were begun. It is nowhere stated affirmatively that the bankrupt owned goods on that day. I think it probable that in using the words "then and there the property of said Noah Jackson, " the pleader had in mind to affirm, without particular regard to the date, that these goods were Jackson's own property, and not those of a third person, or held by him in trust. �Is this defect fatal? Section 1025 of the Eevised Stat- utes requires the courts not to hold an indictment insuf&cient ����
