
    [Department Two.
    October 23, 1883.]
    T. C. DEAN, Appellant, v. A. D. BAKER et al., Respondents.
    Insolvency—Disohahse—Feaud—Evidence.—Action on a promissory note. The defendant pleaded a discharge in insolvency. Meld, that the plaintiff might show in answer to the plea that the defendant had intentionally omitted certain real property owned by him from the schedule annexed to his petition.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County.
    
      Bennett & Wigginton, for Appellant.
    
      R. H, Ward, and Schell & Treat, for Respondents.
   Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that under section 32 of the Insolvency Act of 1852, the court erred in ruling out the offer of the plaintiff to prove that the defendant Grimes had wilfully, knowingly and intentionally omitted from the schedule of property annexed to his petition in insolvency, certain real property held and owned by him at the time of the commencement of the insolvency proceedings; and for this reason the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.  