New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-06-29


he said he would give witness an order directing
the controller to withhold all warrants for money
due Mr. Bell, and to hold all such warrants in ia
ygr OF witness. An order to this effect was ex
hDlted to witness Witness never saw the order
before. He regarded such an order as the same
as the drafts be had received upon the treasurer.
me paper, whatever it was, was left by Mr.. Bell
at the controers Office.
Direct eEGn1indtion 4esurned-There was no
misrepresentation, on the part OF Mr.. Bell, could
have guarded against by ordinary care or inquiry.
HeVer accepted the order, here exhibited, upon
the controller. If had accepted that order as a
guarantee for the payment OF the debt the drafts
held on the treasurer would have been given up.
Edl0drd Laby slno1-Tl-Was sent about the 7th
April 10 see If money was due by the city, or, if it
vas not TO see if Mr.. Bell could give goDd security
He said he had the worth of about $4,000 in carts
and mules. He offered a mortgage upon a house.
The property was found to be Inadequate security
| de then said he would give other security but
ne DID not appeBr again and he was arrested. A
few days before his arrest he said the city owed
him S6QOO but on account of the change OF govern
ment Ne could not get it for month or two.
Ir. West SD01n-This witness, having business |
with Mr. harchand, present at interviews be. |
tween him and Mr.. Bell. At the first interview he
witnessed, MIR. Narchand produced such papers as
the orders in court upon the treasurer and said to
| dr. Bell, :" can't afford to lose this money
| you must pay me or secure me-" after which
/ he threw The papers penlently on the coun
! ter. Mr.. Bell said the city owed him 5000
| out if MIR harChand could not wait for the
money, he would give security. "Wel,n said
Nj Marehand that's all ask" Mr. Bell was in
! the Office next day lie was pointing ont to MI
| h4Tch4nd property for seculity. Mr. Marchand
| said the property was not worth $500, and
! told him that unless he settled mp be would be ar
| rested. This was about the ION April, the day
| hHfore Mr. Bell was arrested witness heard
! sIr. Zen told BIZ. Marchand lie would give him
| ample security the next day after the interview
| referred to.
3ir. Hggir5oHor1 s,ro4n-Has been chief clerk
in me street commissioners otd3e during the last
tEFIIt mr.
cleaning Streets such contracts as Mr. Bell hal,
| are under the supervision of the street cOmmis
soner. Nr. Bell was contractor in March. but is
net now. because lie has been placed IN d fault Tor
one of his contracts about the lst Of May, and for
the other about the middle Of the same gonth.
| Men employed by the city were performing the
work OF bis contract in March. Wituess heard
from the deputy street commissioners that Mr.
Bell was not al work on his contract in March.
The cross examination of this witness ELECTED
nothing additional to or contradictory of his evi-
dence upon the direct examination.
The district attorney here introduced in evidence
the contract between Mr.. Bell AID the city, tc
show that, by a clause of the contract, in the
event Of non-performance of any part of the
contract tie city reserved to itself the right t.
alnul the agreement, without putting the con
t tractor in default and without resorting to the
: Tribunals Of justice,
!
ration, could anuul contract by denying ar
1 arbitrament in the courts Of justice.
{, The district attorney asked the witness: Wa
Bell at work for the city in the month Of March?
a 4Ir. Lynch objected ID the question. The issut
/ was not did he perform his contract, but was he
s contractor.
! The court ruled that the point was well taken.
Guslavus Schmidt, Esq., said he had appeared a
- LnFa +fn ~, Gabo1
q of Mr. Earchand, and now hs would ask leave t
/ say few words to the court as anaicus cu1-jH. Fl
1 would request the attention of the court to tn
fact that By the terms of the contract, hr. Be
t. was required to perform certain specific duties
a that he had stated to Mr.. Marchand that he was
N work on 7he contract. Herein was the fal.
y representation. This the substance
y Of the case. Mr. Bell was to clean the streets an
- | the manner in which he was to do il was plaiuI
Il specified. He was under the control of the stree
Ut commissioner. The street commissioner was hi
e supervisor, by the laws and By the terms of tn
y contract In view of all these facts was it nc
e proper to ask if the accused was performing hi
duties at the time he represented moneys du
: him for doing that which it could be shown he di
al not do
lie The court would not allow proof of failure
Is contract in criminal case. That was matte
y for the civil courts.
q. Gf,. Be4anger, street commissioner Sporn-
n The Testimony of blr. Bellanger identical wit
ot that Of Mr.. Hgginbottom, aud it is unnecessary
Az therefore, to give it, except that Mir Belangt
~ gave evidence which Mr. HigginbOttom did no
ri mat Mr.. Bell did not work on his contract
IN March, and therefore, he was not credited as h
"a | would have been had he performed his dutie
n Mr.. Bellanger refused him certificate, in col
H. sequence of his defacation. The committee G
re streets aud landings of the present common cou
ed I.ei have before them claim presented by nj
he teseil in dispute of witnesses decision.
~ ChdS. r. Berry smo'n-In April last Mr.. Be
ar came to the Office of witness and directed Kim
m prepare a mortgage on property down town. M
he Bell had bought the property for about S30O0 az
of the mortgage was to be for upwards of $500
d. Witness suggested the insuiGiency Of the securt
he Mr. Bell said he had made that all right with N
II Marchand. Witness suggested to hr. Bell
fts ought to get certificate from the mortgage ofC
,r. He said he would see to that and would bring
'e next morning, but he never called after.
at The court saw nothing in all this but what eve
" man had right to do, to buy his peace.
w Mr.. Schmidt recognized the propriety of eve
rd man buying his peace, under proper circumstance
he but did not think any man had a right to CO
promise felony.
uF The court valued very highly the suggestion o
IA friend of the court, but did not consider the p
VIZ ticuar circumstances presented as showing co
nv promise of felony.
Gu The district attorney announced the sViden
for the prosecution closed here.
Jr THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENsE.
lis. lE- Chddsoick St1orn-Was assistant treasu
tor in the Office of the city treasurer up to the
on April last. MIR. MarChand frequently deposi
lch with witness for collection Mr.. Bells drafts.
lry c0gnzed the present drafts having been depC
cry ted with him for collection. They were not p
Wit because the finance committee had not passpd
'O MIR. Bells bills. MIR. Marchand came to the tire
ted urer's Office on the day witusss was quitting So
was one suggested that something shoad be done
he the controller's Office to prevent Mr. Bell fir
was procuring warrant from that officer. Mr. M
ION chand acquiesced.
ant, Witness afterwards learned that such an agI
he ment as that presented in the order upon the C
" troller signed by MIR. Bell and presented in Co
ON had been entered into, but witness had no persu
no knowledge of the fact,
Dan Cross eIdmined-There was no money to
7th credit of Mr. Bell in The treasury, when witt
use declined to pay his drafts.
ood Direct prdnliRation reSuntPd-Such drafts v
on never paid on the first of the month"; They v
the paid between the first and the tenth.
ated Again cross erdnlined-There was no ms
laye out of which l could have paid the warra
On except at my own risk.
MN l. r. Mooney SlcOi7l-Has been assistant treas
uale since the I'd of April last. Has never paid
he warrant or order upon Mr.. Bells contracts.
lrty r. PrdHs s,ror5l-Has been deputy oontr
not since the 25th oil March last. Has no IecolleC
r e NJ md in tha LII