THIS was an action of debt, on a judgment. The defendant pleaded his discharge under the act, entitled “ an act for giving relief in cases of insolvency.” The plaintiff replied, that the defendant, at the time of presenting his petition to the judge for relief, under the act, was indebted to one Hans Kiersted., in the sum of 500 dollars, and in order to obtain his discharge, procured Kiersted to become a petitioning creditor for a larger sum than was really due to him from the defendant, to wit, the sum of 4790 dollars and 73 cents, and that Kiersted signed the defendant’s petition, and made the affidavit for that sum, according to the act. The plaintiff also replied further, that the defendant, at the time of presenting his petition, was indebted to the plaintiff, in the sum of 251 dollars and 15 cents, and that the defendant fraudulently concealed the amount of the debt so due to the plaintiff; and further, that one Elizabeth Cooper, administratrix of Ananias Cooper, deceased, was indebted to the defendant, at the time of presenting the petition, in the sum of 263 dollars, and 77 cents, which debt was a part of the estate and effects of the defendant; and that the defendant delivered to the judge, at the time of presenting his petition, an inventory of all his estate, real and personal, &c. and made oath to the same, and did falsely swear that the inventory so by him presented, was, in all respects, just and true, when, in fact, the said inventory was not just and true ; and that the debt so due to him from the said Elizabeth Cooper, administratrix, &c. was not mentioned, or set down in the-inventory, but was fraudulently concealed by the defendant, whereby the defendant was guilty of perjury, &c.

To this replication the defendant demurred specially, and assigned for causes of demurrer,

1. That the replication attempts to put in issue, several and distinct matters.

2. That the replication is double in alleging, by way of avoiding the discharge of the defendant, several and distinct matters, each of which, if true, and rightly pleaded, would have avoided the discharge, thereby tending to introduce a multiplicity of issues on the record.

3. That the replication is multifarious, and presents a variety of points, but not one single point on which issue can be joined, &c.

The replication in this case is similar to the one in the case of Service v. Heermance,* and which the court determined to be bad. It presents three distinct and independent grounds for avoiding the defendant’s discharge, each being a distinct point, and concluding with a verification. This kind of duplicity in pleading is not permitted. The statute allowing several pleas to be pleaded, does not apply to replications, and by the common law double pleas are not allowed.*

The replication alleges that the discharge is void, because obtained by fraud. Fraud is.a single ground or point, and the party may set forth several facts and circumstances in this replication to show the fraud.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress