SHAINWALD V. LEWIS. 757 �templation, It was held in the private ofiSce of Lewis, and was attended by Sehoenfeld, Newman, Lewis, and Mr. Naph- taly, as legal adviser. Its avowed object was to defraud the iirtn creditors by placing the entire assets of the firm in Lewis' hands, who was first to satisfy Newman's indebted- ness to himself and the firm's indebtedness to him of $2,000. He was also to pay Schoenfeld's individual indebtedness of $8,000 to Bremer, and also the balance of his indebtedness of $4,000 to Newman or Mrs. Alexander. Whatever should remain after making these payments was to be divided be- tween Newman and Sehoenfeld. To enable Lewis to attach the property of the firm it was necessary that he should ap- pear to be a firm creditor, and for this purpose a f urther fab- rication of firm notes was required. At Mr. Naphtaly's sug- gestion, a demand note for $17,000, antedatei as of December 23, 1876, was drawn up and signed by Mr. Sehoen- feld in the firm name. Mr. Naphtaly, however, objected to the form of the note, as it appeared on its fade to be long overdue. It was, therefore, destroyed, and a new firm nbt©' was made, antedated in like manmer, but payable six montbff after date. A note was also made, by Mr. Naphtaly's ad- 'vice, in favor of Mrs. Alexander for $4^000. This, to», was antedated. These notes were given to Mr.' Naphtaly, with' the understanding that an attachment suit should forthwith be sommenced upon them — the fabrieated firm note giveniio-- Bremer, and the genuine firm note for $2,000 held 'by Lewis. The note for $4,000 was returned on the same eveuingby Mr. Naphtaly, who, on reflection, preferred that the transac- tion should take the form of an antedated firm guaranty of Schoenfeld's original note, rather than of a newly-fabricated note to Mrs. Alexander. The reason assigned for this pref- erence was, according to Sehoenfeld, that when there was a genuine note there was no need of resorting to a fabrieated one. The difference either in morals or laws between fabri- cating the entire instrument and fabricating and antedating a firm guaranty of Schoenfeld's note to Newman, he did not, when examined as a witness, attempt to explain. Ail theee preliminary preparations for carrying into effect the fraudu- ��� �
