Harbaugh

This is an appeal from an order adjudging appellant guilty of contempt on refusing to obey a turnover order. Appellant testified consistently throughout the turnover proceedings, and in the contempt proceedings, that he did not have in his possession any property to turn over. Many questions are raised in the briefs concerning the power of the court to hear or consider evidence of the respondent in proceedings instituted to obtain a turnover order, to the effect that he did not have and never did have the property which he was directed to turn over. Whether or not such evidence can be considex'ed, and the weight to be attached to it, are matters frequently considered by the courts, but which have been set at rest in a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States written by Chief Justice Taft. Oriel et al. v. Russell, Trustee (Prela v. Hubshman, Trustee), 278 U. S. 358 , 49 S. Ct. 173 , 73 L. Ed. 419 . Here an order was made, on August 19, 1930, directing appellant to turn over to the trustee within five days from the date of said order: «* * * Merchandise con *177 sisting of jewelry used by the bankrupt in connection with its said business as a retail jeweler on the…