246 FBDBRAL REPORTER �part of this money was furnished to friends to be used in pur- chasing in his property at sherifiF's sale, and in this he is not contradicted. It is not pretended that there is any direct evidence that any of the money in question was used for the purchase charged in the fourth specification. But the court is asked to draw such inference. I agree with the learned counsel for the creditors that suspicions cireumstances may be so strong as to authorize a court to find the concealment or fraudulent appropriation of money by a bankrupt. But I altogether fail to find such cireumstances in this case. It is well settled that the burden of sustaining specifications of objection is upon the opposing creditoi's. It is always a fair presumption that the bankrupt has acted with integrity. �The eighth specification charges that the bankrupt has wil- fully swom falsely in the affidavit attached to his petition, in that he has wilfully omitted from his schedule certain amounts receivëd by him on August 26, 1878, to-wit : from J. W. Maynard, $5,000 ; from Guy W. Maynard & Co., $3,- 679.42; and from G. W. Maynard & Co., $27,572.67. To sustain this specification the opposing creditors rely upon certain entries in the books of the bankrupt made on said date, whereby the accounts of the persons above named arl& respectively credited with the sums mentioned. But the evi- dence is plenary that the bankrupt did not receive, at that time, said sums, or any part thereof. This specification therefore falls. The said entries are part of those which are the foundation of the eleventh specification, and were made under the cireumstances and for the purpose hereinafter stated. �The ninth specification oharges that the bankrupt, liaving knowledge that Charles E. Gibson had proved a false and fictitious debt against him of $3,900, did not disclose ihe same to his assignees within one month after he aoquired such knowledge. I am by no means prepared to say that the evidence warrants the conclusion that Gibson's proof of debt is of the character here alleged. But if this ever so clearly appeared, it would be essential to show that the bankrupt had knowledge of the fact in order to sustain this ��� �
