case BRACEY against harris commissioner of bankrupt can ask a person examine  before they what he know of all matter concern the bankrupt estate for it be  too general nor in what manner he assist the bankrupt to conceal his effect  for it tend to criminate he and on commitment if they conclude their warrant  until he conform to our authority it be bad and he shall be discharge for the  word of the statute ought to have be pursue S c salk S c comb S c Sett Rem S c  holt Bracey be summon before commissioner of bankrupt to give a account of the  bankrupt estate the question demand of he be first to give a account of all  matter which he know concern the say estate second modern when and in what  manner he aid and abet the bankrupt in carry away his effect or in embezzle or  conceal the same these question he refuse to answer because the first be too  general and the second be to accuse himself so that he will be liable to the  penalty of double the value of the good which be conceal by the statute  Elizabeth c but see Geo c a he be Willing to answer what he can at present or  to any particular question which the commissioner shall ask but upon his  refusal to answer those two question he be commit have bring a habeas corpus  it appear upon the return that the warrant of commitment conclude that Bracey  shall be commit until he conform to the authority of the commissioner this be  now allege to be a void commitment because they have a special authority give  they by the statute James c that if the party shall refuse to be swear and to  answer such question as shall be minister to he that then the commissioner or  the great number of they may commit the person refuse to modern er p prison  there to remain without bail c until he submit to the commissioner to be  examine and not till he conform to the authority of the commissioner and  therefore it be move that he may be discharge to which it be answer that as to  the general question the statute do not give the commissioner power to ask  such question even of the bankrupt himself and that the conclusion of the  warrant be well enough for the word of the Act be that the commissioner may  commit till he submit to be examine which be a consequence that he conform to  their authority but the court seem to incline that the party need not pay a  universal obedience to the commissioner so as to answer all question but only  to answer what he know concern the carry away of any part of the bankrupt  estate by any person but not by himself see miller case will Bl Rep langhorn  case Bl Rep prescott case burr and Pedleys case cook b l case in crown law b  but for that fault in the conclusion of the warrant of commitment Bracey be  discharge