The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-04-12
The Durell Investigation.
Suppressed Testimony.
Where Durell and Norton Got Their
Fine Clothes.
A Little Matter of $500.

Most OF the testimony that was taken be-
fore the Darrell Investigating Committee
during its sittings at the st. Charles Hotel,
has never seen the light, even that enter
prising Journal, the New York Herald, hav-
ing missed some of the most important and
most damaging.
We have obtained the particulars in two
cases, to which we give publicity IN advance
OF the published report, which, by the way
hangs fire most suspicionsly.
In the case of Davis 4 Jackson, bank
rupts, the assets were something over S47 goo.
After everything had been surrendered, and
the creditors were satisfied, Norton refused
to have a settlement until he was paid
$40, 0OO which he had the unblushing efiront-
cry to claim rs fees and costs. The attorney
representing the New York creditors told
Mr.. Davis that if he would sign over every
thing to the creditors, the matter would then
be taken out OF the hands of Norton, and
upon that representation, consent was given.
The attorney subsequently advised MIR.
Davis to consent that Norton should retain
Goo,uoV, WHICH, iC ulu, SAuu tuV utlttuSC W Ac
turned over to the committee of creditors.
On the fifteenth April, 1872, in Mr.. Davis
absence, and when the store on Poydras
street was in the hands Of the Marshal's
signee. and his clerk, called at the store and
selected the following articles of apparel:
Durrel. One fine black frock-coat, size 4. silk
One iue black pilot cloth overcoat (English S35 90
Norton duplicated the above.
Wells, Mo- tons clerk, took goods to the value
When Mr.. Davis went to his store next
morning, he noticed the bundles laid aside,
and asked Mr. Wells who they were intended
for, to which Mr.. Wells replied that one was
for Judge Durell and one for Norton Very
naturally, this excited the ire of Mr.. Davis,
who remarked that it was a shabby piece of
business for a Judge to take clothing in that
manner. Wherenpon, he was politely but
torcibly informed by Mr.. Wells that it was
none of his business.
To this, Mr.. Davis very properly demurred,
uutu Ic w IT'S ui-tIC lOI tIt DIOttC
ton of his creditors. This excited Mr. Wells,
who threatened to put Mr.. Davis out, but
upon it's being suggested that he could not
do it, that gentleman became more quiet
and less administrative. The clothing was
finally carried away and no money paid for
it,
The elegance of Durells apparel, and the
excellent clothes worn by Norton have fire.
quently been observed, but not many per-
sons have ever known just how that pair OF
worthless replenished their wardrobes
Fancy United States Judge walking into
his court on cold morning, muffied up in
an elegant overcoat, which he had just
taken from the poor bankrupt whose case
was coming up that day before him; and
then fancy the feelings of that poor bank
rupt and his unfortunate creditors, as they
gaze, hope,essly and helplessly, at the
Judge and assignee arrayed like Solomon of
old, all at their expense. "But," say the
apOlogists of the Judge, he is a weak man,
and, no doubt, Norton made him do it," We
incline to the belief that Norton is not half
80 much to blame in that regard as has been
alleged.
In another case witness, N. H. Rightor,
testified that in the matter of the bank
ruptcy of Carlos g. Deblanc (No. 62), E. +,
Norton, as assignee in bankruptcy of said
estate, sold by private act (Which is in my
possession) to A. J. J. Barus, mortgage
creditor of Carlos, certain lands described
in said act, and situated in the parish of
Terrebonne. The consideration of said sale
true consideration was the sum of six hun
bred dollars cash, which l counted and paid
in currency, as required by Norton, into the
hands of Norton in person. This act was
dated and signed by all the parties to it on
the 10th of April. 1863. Two days after
wards, on the 18th of April, 1869, an order
was signed, Gas have since learned,) of
which ! have duly certified copy, by
which E. II. Durell on motion of II. d.
Stone, attorney of Nortoh, and on suggest
ing various things, ordered the sale of said
lands, either at public or private sale, for a
nominal sum and costs.
If anything were wanting to prove the
corrupt practices INDUCED 10 by the bank
rupt court, it could readily be found in the
famous Winehill CASE which, for some rea-
son or other, has not yet seen the light
through the Northern papers.
The way the money goes is shown in the