In re Stein

Nathan Stein, the bankrupt herein, has been cited before this court on an order to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, because he has refused to be examined according to law under section 21 (a) pf the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9605), regarding certain matters in connection with the *170 administration of the business of the bankrupt prior to the date of bankruptcy.

One Jake Aurabaeh, a witness called by the trustee of the estate of said bankrupt, to be examined under the provisions of the same section, has in like manner been cited before this court for contempt in refusing to be examined according to law.

The facts in each ease have been sufficiently set out in the referee’s certificates, and are not such as to require restatement. Attention, therefore, will be given only to the alleged contumacious behavior of respondents in failing to be examined as provided by the section of the Bankruptcy Act referred to.

It appears from the certificate on contempt of the bankrupt that,- after full and complete examinations before the referee, among others the following questions were put to him by counsel for the trustee, and the following answers returned:

Section…