
    BERNHEIMER et al. v. KELLEHER.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    December 27, 1899.)
    i. Contempt—False Swearing.
    A litigant’s false swearing will justify a finding that he is guilty of contempt of court.
    3. Same—Fine.
    In an action for plaintiff’s interest in property that defendant had fraudulently transferred, a fine Imposed on defendant, of the amount of a judgment secured by plaintiff, together with the supplementary costs, on finding him guilty of contempt for false swearing, is not excessive, where the value of the property transferred exceeded the judgment.
    Appeal from special term.
    Action by Simon E. Bernheimer and another against Daniel Kelleher. From- a judgment finding defendant guilty of contempt, he appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and SCHUCHMAN and O’DWYER, JJ.
    L. W. Beddington, for appellant.
    Bose & Putzel, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

The false swearing of defendant justified the court in finding him guilty of contempt of court. Lawrence v. Harrington, 63 Hun, 195, 17 N. Y. Supp. 649; Bohn v. Hatch, 133 N. Y. 69, 30 N. E. 659; In re Hopper, 9 Misc. Rep. 171, 29 N. Y. Supp. 715. The fine, $938.26, and $30 costs, being the amount of the judgment and usual supplementary costs, was not excessive, because it appears that the value of chattels transferred by him exceeded that sum by several hundred dollars. It does not appear that said chattels were mortgaged, although it is intimated in some of the affidavits submitted that such is the case. But no sworn statement appears in the record submitted to us that such mortgage was made. We must therefore assume that at the time of the transfer mentioned the chattels were free and clear of all incumbrances.

The order must be affirmed, "with costs.  