whom he sold on a credit, all imperfectly kept, he was not entitled to a discharge, even though from these books and his invoices kept on file it may have been possible, with such memoranda, to make up proper accounts. 2. SAME SUBJECT-FRAUDULENT PREFERENCES-CARE OF ASSETS. A merchant, being insolvent, permitted and authorized certain creditors to take away his goods in payment of their debts. Held, that he could not be discharged. Not only were the preferences fraudulent, but it was his duty to protect his assets against such losses. In Bankruptcy. The bankrupt, being a small retail grocery and liquor merchant, kept no books except a small pocket memorandumbook, in which each day he entered his cash received and cash paid out, which was lost and never produced; a blotter, in which daily sales on credit were entered; and a kind of ledger, in which accounts for goods sold on credit were kept against the purchasers. These were imperfectly and negligently kept, and his discharge was opposed for not keeping proper books of account. He kept his invoices on file, and it was contended in his behalf that, from that and the books he kept, proper accounts could be made up and his financial condition ascertained. One of the bankrupt's creditors having obtained judgment against him, issued execution and levied on his goods, the sheriff leaving them with the bankrupt. His creditors came, and without objection helped themselves to the goods, taking them away on drays and wagons. These facts were specified in opposition to his discharge. James Campbell, Jr., for the creditors. HAMMOND, D. J., (sitting by designation.) The discharge in this case must be refused. The cash-book mentioned in the proof has not been produced, but, taking all the bankrupt says as to his mode of keeping it to be true, and inspecting the two books he does produce, it sufficiently appears that he did not keep such books of account as the business in which he was engaged required. He kept no merchandise account, no expense account, no account of the purchases made by him, and certainly no proper accounts of anything except of sales made on a credit, which appear to be very imperfect. It is true that the law does not require a merchant to keep his books after the most approved methods of book-keeping, but it does require that his accounts shall be so kept that a competent accountant can, from the books themselves, ascertain his true financial condition. If this can be done, the form in which they are kept is of no consequence. Re Archenbrown, 12 N. B. R. 17, and cases cited; Re Antisdel, 18 N. B. R. 290. There may have been in his store, in the shape of invoices and other papers, such memoranda of the facts that proper accounts could have been made up by extraordinary efforts to disentangle them; but this will not do. He must by his books, and the entries in them, under proper accounts, however informal, be enabled to show the condition of his business. The books relied on here do not come up to this requirement. The other specifications are very informal, and, on demurrer or exception, would not be held sufficient, because they do not, by requisite averments, show that the creditors had knowledge of the insolvency of the bankrupt, or reasonable cause to believe it, and knew a fraud on the law was intended. But they were not objected to by the bankrupt, and, having taken issue on them, it is now too late to make that objection. The proof abundantly shows that he was insolvent, and that the creditors knew it, and intended to take an unlawful preference. It shows, on the part of the bankrupt, a most reckless disregard of the rights of his creditors, and his obligations to the bankrupt law, if he desired its benefits. The fact that his goods had been levied on by execution did not relieve him from these obligations. The sheriff acquired title to sufficient goods to satisfy the execution, but there were largely more goods than would satisfy it, and it was the duty of the bankrupt to protect them, instead of inviting or permitting his creditors to help themselves to such as they wanted. Let an order be entered denying the discharge. MYERS V. CALLAGHAN and others. (Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois. February 5, 1881.) 1. COPYRIGHT-STATE REPORTER. In the absence of any express legislation by the state indicating a contrary principle, a state reporter is entitled to a copyright in his volumes of reports for what is the work of his own mind and hand, notwithstanding it may be true that he can have no copyright in the opinions of the court. 2. SAME CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES. The various provisions of law in relation to copyright should have a liberal construction, in order to give effect to what may be considered the inherent right of the author to his own work. 3. BANKRUPTCY-RIGHTS OF BANKRUPT. A bankrupt has a right to pursue all proper legal measures for the the protection of his interests until an assignee of his estate has been appointed. [Ed. In Chancery. J. V. Le Moyne, for complainant. J. L. High and Thomas Moran, for defendants. DRUMMOND, C. J. This is a bill filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for an infringement of the rights of the plaintiff under the copyright laws of the United States. The bill alleges substantially the following facts: From 1865 to 1868 the plaintiff and Horace P. Chandler constituted a business firm for publishing law books, and as such firm they became the proprietors of volumes 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 of the Illinois Reports. Norman L. Freeman was the reporter, under the law and by the appointment of the court, of the volumes of reports; and the firm purchased all the proprietary rights of Freeman, and paid him a valuable consideration therefor, he agreeing that the firm should have the copyright of all said books. The firm published a considerable number of copies of each of said volumes. In 1868 Chandler sold out all his interest to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also the proprietor of, and entitled to the copyright in, volumes 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46 of the Illinois Reports, of which Freeman was also the reporter, and from him the plaintiff purchased all his interest in those volumes. The plaintiff has published a large number of copies of each of these lastnamed volumes, and still has the copyright to all his volumes of reports from 32 to 46, inclusive. In 1877 the plaintiff reprinted volumes 37 and 38, and, as some changes were made in the arrangement of paging the books, a copy of the printed title of each volume, and afterwards copies of the books themselves, were deposited in the office of the librarian of congress. The defendants had full knowledge of the exclusive rights of the plaintiff, and attempted to buy the same from him, but refused to pay the price demanded, and thereupon reprinted and published the volumes 32 to 38, inclusive, using the material contained in the volumes of the plaintiff, thereby violating the law of congress upon the subject of copyright; not confining themselves to the use of the opinions of the court, but using the head-notes and statements of cases prepared by Mr. Freeman, making colorable changes, thus trying to avoid the plaintiff's rights under the law. The defendants threaten also to republish other volumes copyrighted by the plaintiff, viz., volumes 39 to 46, inclusive, of said reports. These acts, done and threatened by the defendants, have caused and will cause damage to the plaintiff, and therefore he asks that the defendants may be enjoined from publishing or selling any of the said books, and that the same so published may be forfeited to him, and that the defendants be required to deliver them up, and that an account may be rendered by the defendants of all the books published or sold, and that the defendants may pay the damage and costs which the plaintiff has sustained by their wrongful acts. To this bill various defences have been set up. It is claimed that these being volumes of reports by a reporter, acting under the authority of law as a public officer, are not the subject of a copyright under the act of congress. It is also claimed, if they are the subject of copyright, the plaintiff ha not complied with the act of congress in the procurement of the copyright, and therefore none exists. It is insisted, too, by the defendants, that the volumes which are charged to be an infringement of the plaintiff's copyright, are themselves independent productions of different editors and annotators, Messrs. Ewell and Denslow, who were employed by the principal defendants, Messrs. Callaghan & Co., to edit those volumes. It is also said that the plaintiff has acquiesced in the publication of the volumes of the defendants, and that he has lost the right to maintain a suit by his own laches; and, lastly, that the plaintiff has been adjudicated a bankrupt, and therefore cannot maintain this action. It will be observed that the plaintiff claims through a purchase from the reporter. He was an officer of the state, and prepared the volumes under the authority of law, and it is insisted, because he was a public officer and acted in an official capacity, that he had no copyright in these volumes. In one aspect of the case there would seem to be great force in this objection. For example, if an adequate compensation was paid by the state to the reporter for the work done by him in preparing volumes of reports, then whatever property there was in the volumes arising from the labors of the reporter ought to belong to the state and not to him; but I cannot find that view was taken of the case by the state and the court in the appointment of the reporter at that time. On the contrary, it seems to have been considered that the reporter was entitled to any profits which might arise from the sale of these volumes, and that they constituted a part of the perquisites of his office. He was appointed under the authority conferred by section 20 of chapter 29 of the Revised Statutes of 1845, which required the court to appoint a reporter. Mr. Freeman was appointed under the act of 1863, and re-appointed in 1869, and then there appears to have been no regular salThe office seems to have been different then from what it is now, when, it is said, adequate compensation is given by the state to the reporter for the services performed by him. ary. The case of Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Peters, 591, as construed by the courts and the profession, has always been supposed to decide that Mr. Wheaton had a copyright in his reports, provided he had complied with the law then in force upon the subject. It is true that a majority of the court does not distinctly assert that he had that right, but it appears to be necessarily implied from the whole reasoning in the opinion of |