New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-03

me session OF 1905.
@. During the course of this manda-
mus, did you have occasion. 10 speak to
the Attorney General about the urgency
of the claim?
A. did not think it to my interest;
preferred that the Attorney General
should have nothing to do with it.
Cross examined by the Managers:
@. How much did you give for that
claim?
A. Shall state how muchs
@. ask you the question; how much
you paid for it?
A. If that only affected me; but it af-
1ects Mr.. Kaufman also.
@. No, it does not
A. l gave $1,000 for it.
Q. In money?
A. No, l did not.
@. What then?
A. Igave him an obligation, to pay him
$4,000.
@. What was that obligation?
A. 1t is in writing, which he has in his
possession.
Counsel for respondent objects to oral
testimony in regard to this written docu-
ment.
Witness: wish you would summon Mr..
Kaufman about this; l have his bill Of
sale and his transfer; Colonel William Grant
has the transfer made by Kaufman TO me,
in his possession.
@. Is it not fact that you were not to
pay Kaufman unless you succeeded In the
suit! was it not contingent purchase!
A. Yes, it was contingent purchase
It is a matter that did not trouble myself
much about, until lately. After had OBJ
tanned the judgement in the Fourth Dis
trict Court, was better satisfied with the
claim than Kathman was; kaufman said,
that he had been swindled, and said that
he would either apply to the Legislature
for relief or wait over till another Legisla-
ture, unless could get it through, and he
said that if I would take it, that any terms
would be satisfactory.
@. Was that the contract?
A. That was the original proposition.
He handed the papers to me at his office,
and afterwards he came to my office and
we conversed about it good while, then
he obtained this judgement in the Fourth
District Court; he then transferred the
claim to me for FIVE thousand dollars.
@. What want to know is whether that
transfer was not contingent upon your sue
cess in getting the claim?
A. The transfer reads somewhat in this
way; I can get the paper; it is bill of
sale from J. C. Kathman to j. B. Ho ward,
who bought I" his right, title and interest
to the claim, ETC., with power Of subroga-
ton and substitution"
@. You gave him an obligation
A. Yes, | am thinking whether it was
an absolute obligation; l think IL was.
TI~ok ha
A. Yes, sir; but I would like to have
Mr.. Kaufman sent for; | believe it was an
absolute obligation.
@. You are a practicing attorney?
a. am.
@. Are you not aware of law prohibit
ing attorneys from purchasing certain
claims?
A. am now, but was not then.
@. You say that you did not regard the
Judgment of the Fourth District Court as
binding?
A. was, pro lorna, because Nh. Kath'
man was no longer the party in Interest
that was the ground. l used the best way
to get the claim through, because be-
ueve Kathman's claim was a just one.
@. If you regarded the judgment of the
Fourth District Court as sufficient, why
did you not appeal from it?
A. An appeal might take two or three
years, and preferred shorter process.
@. Are you not aware that the State
might have interviewed and gotten an ap-
peal from the Sixth District Court?
A. There was six weeks that the case lay
over, and the State or any other party
might have interviewed, from the twelfth OF
I. August to the Sixth of October.
@. Was that after service had been
made on the Auditor?
A. The record will show for itself
think it was six weeks that the case laid
there, and it was discussed generally in
the newspapers. :;
@. Were you frequently in the Auditor
Office during this time? ;
A. Very seldom.
@. Did you have frequent conversations
with the Auditor during this time?
A. tried to get him to issue the war
rants without any mandamus, as l thought
he had q right to do, under the act of 1856
regulating the Auditors Office !.
Q. Did yeu make this request after yof
filed the petition in the Sixth Distrit
Court?
A. I told him tbs was so fully satisfied
of the entire Justice of the claim
O. Did you tell him that after you had
filed your petition in the Sixth Distric
Court
A. Yes, 1 think so; that is, as l would
casually in conversation tell him, that NJ
ought to consider the law sufficient fol-
him to act upon. l said to Mr.. Wickliffe
also, remember now, that I was of the
opinion that q mand anus in itself con
ferred no right whatever. He, however
did not hold to that doctrine; hi
opinion was that the court had thu
power to compel him to do suct
acts, but thought he had discretlonarI
power. ]:
@. Did you, in these subsequent con
vers atoms, after fling the petition IN ting
Sixth District Court, tell him that yot
would persist in your efforts?
A. My impression is that Mr.. Wickliitt
was under that impression. l never IN
formed him that there was any termination
of the litigation.
@. Was that after the decision in thu
Fourth District Court?
A. The decision was held back; after
the case was submitted; it was held under
advisement by Judge Theard for a long
time; think after it was submitted thu
second time Judge Theard held it under
Amusement for some weeks.
@. You did not institute proceedings il
the Sixth District Court prior to the fina
Judgment in the Fourth District Court?
A. think not. because if the Fourtt
District Court had decided in favor q
Kaufman, thought that would be suff
Gent for the Auditor to authorize him Il