772 FEDERAL EBPOBTER. �received the same having reasonable cause to believe said Frederic was insolvent, and knowing that said conveyance was in fraud of the provisions of the bankrupt act, and the amendmenta therefco. And, by the second amendment, to these was added the charge that said conveyance is void and of no effect in equity and at common law, being an instru- ment which, in effect, hinders and delays the creditors of said Whipple in the collection of their just debts against him, and is void, also, under the provisions of chapter 163 of the General Statutes of Ehode Island. But inasmuch as these points, though stated in defendant's brief, were net pressed by the complainant in the close, I dismiss them from consid- eration as not sustained. �Not so, however, as to the charges in the bill as first amended. The several averments as to the insolvency of the grantor, the belief of the grantee as to the grantor's insolvency, the intent of the grantor, and the knowledge of the grantee that the conveyance was in fraud of the provisions of the bankrupt act, were the subjeots of prolonged and exhaustive discussion by the learned counsel of the parties, who, agreeing Bubstantially as to the principles of law involved, differed widely and irreconcilably as to the weight and materiality of the facts claimed to be established by the testimony, bearing upon the relations, and dealings, and correspondeuce of the mother and son. �In view of these facts, and especially of the legitimate pre- Bumptions which they warrant and necessitate, I am con- strained to adjudge that the complainant, by his testimony and argument, establishes satisfactorily the several allega- tions upon which his claim for a deeree is grounded and pressed. As this evidence is set forth in extenso in the printed record, it seema not necessary in this connection to Btate it in detail, or to indulge in comment upon any portion of it. Neither does it seem necessary in this connection to Btate in explicit terms what portion of the testimony sub- mitted I have been constrained to disregard as either incom- petent, irrelevant, ineredible or mendacious. It seems suffi- oient to say that, upon the issues presented at the hearing, ����
