644 FEDERAL REPORTER. �baukrupts for their discharge, one of the questions being whether one-third in amount of the creditors who have proved their debts had assented to the discharge, it appeared from the proofs of debt returned that interest on some of the daims had been improperly included to a date subsequent to the filing of the original petition, and in one proof on a judg- ment costs subsequently accrued had also been inchided. For these reasons it was referred to the clerk to compute the proper amount of the proofs, excluding such interest and costs. And now the case bas been heard on his report and on the register's certificate. It appears by the report of the clerk that, excluding the claim of one Partridge, which is disputed, the creditors who assent are less than one-third in value of the creditors proving. �It is objected, on the part of the bankrupt, that on some of the claims proved no interest bas been allowed, not even down to the date of the filing of the petition, and that the addition of such interest might affect the resuit. But in those cases there is no interest claimed in their proofs of debt by the creditors, and, of course, their debts cannot be taken for the purpose of this computation to be any greater than stated in the proofs filed. The object" of the reference was to exclude interest obviously not a part of the debt provable, and not toascertain the amount of the bankrupts' debts without regard to the proofs made. The one-third required by the act is one-third of the debts proved. It is also objected that in the claim of Verplanck, receiver, which is a claim on a judg- ment recovered since the commencement of these proceedings, upon a cause of action theretofore existing, interest on an account bas been allowed from the date of the last item of the account, without any statement in the proofs of the date, or average date, when said account became due. The proof, as now stated by the clerk, includes only interest allowed in the judgment as due up to the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings. That interest was claimed in the complaint, and bas been found due. It seems not to be a case where, under General Order No. 34, the claimauts' deposition should ����
