
    Eckle et al. v. Fitzgerald.
    What allegations are sufficient to prevent a discharge under the insolvent act of the District of Columbia,
    Upon a verdict against the petitioner, he will not be ordered into close custody, if he is out upon a prison-bounds bond.
    Fitzgerald petitioned the chief judge for a discharge under the insolvent law of the District of Columbia.
    Eckle and others, his creditors, opposed his discharge, and filed two allegations:
    1. That he disposed of certain property (specified) with intent to defraud his creditors, by selling the same, and withholding the same from his creditors, and applying the proceeds to his own use.
    2. That he disposed of the same property, with intent to defraud his creditors by secreting the same.
   The Couet

(Thruston, J. absent,) was of opinion that the allegations were sufficient.

Verdict. Guilty.

The Court made the same order as in PlumselVs case, at this term, [ante, 86.]  