80 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the oreditors. No information was communicated to the wit- ness of the six suits which were then pending in the state court, and in which judgments were rendered on that very day. This was deceit on the part of the bankrupt, and it is not mitigated by anything which the bankrupt in his own tes- timony says upon the snbject, for he admits that he had the alleged conversation with Phelps; that Phelps asked him whether there were suits commeneed against him; that he answered that there were sUch suits in justice courts, and that these suits did not involve more than $600 ; and in his answer to the petition in bankruptoy, sworn to November 27, 1876, he admits that he did not tell Phelps that the suits in which judgments were recovered were then pending. Here, then, was a crediter from abroad, who was seeking information direetly from the bankrupt with reference to his finaneial condition, inquiring as to suits — as to any suit brought against him — and he is diverted from his line of inquiry and misled as to the real facts, by what is shown to have been clearly a deliberate suppression of a most vital f act, that on, that very day cases pending against him in the state court in favor of relations and another crediter, to the amount of $15,000, were ripe for judgment. Surely, this alone is a powerful cir- cumstanee of an affirmative character, tending to show at least the existence of a desire on the part of the bankrupt to prefer these creditors. In another part of his testimony he says that he does not know that he informed any crediter of the pendency of these suits against him, and that he does not think he would be apt to do so; and this would be undoubtedly true, if he was desirous that by means of judg- ments these creditors should obtain preferences, and especially if he was at the time by any affirmative action facilitating such a resuit. It is true the bankrupt further testifies that he thought he should get through and pay his debts, but that is no excuse for suppressing the truth when direct inquiry was made of him by one of his creditors, and is too unsub- stantial to remove what appears to be good grounds for the belief that he was actuated by a motive to hide from view the novements of other creditors to secure preferences. ��� �
