The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-02-08
THE BELLOCQ-NODL0M CASE.
seventh Bays Oeeedings-The PrOsecB'
tiOn RESTS Its Casc-Wftnesses
for Defense.

1
| ton RESTS Its Casc--Witnesses
| for Befensc.
| The examination OF witnesses was continued
yesterday, opening for the day With
| ADOLPHE BGuCHARD,
| recalled identified letters of Mr.. Lowell and
bThe,dore Vallade. They wore alloAceived In
due course oaonail. Identified letter from r.
H. Shannon to his son offered In Evidence.
Did not show Peychaud these letters lShan-
mons letter, referring to his fee and protest
| ing against the retention OF $500 by his t13ou-
chard 81 son for the purpose of paying Emer-
son, as he (Shannon) had nothing to do with
| the employment Of Emerson, read to The
jury.1 o @
| LOUIS II. GODFREY.
Reside in the city: am clerk; was book
keeper for Beliocq, Noblom n Co.; was ut first
books; recognize the books In court as those
of the firm Made an affidavit in the BelIocq,
Noblom II Go. case before the Cart OF Claims.
Witness explained the manner in which the
Hbooks of the firm were kept.
| Knew Pierre Roy: he WAS q member of the
| firm; he was the outside man; would collect
| money outside the city, OF which he would
make report, upon his return to the city, aud 1t
would then be entered upon the journal. The
prosecution here rested it's case.
The first witness called for the defense was
| CHAS. A. CONRAD.
| Am a member of the bar was employed by
| Bouchard about 1869. Bouchard met me on
| Canal street, and said he had u large case
| which would require the examination Of q
great many witnesses In New Orleans, and
offered me % contingent fee OF S5000 | asked
him to let me see the papers; he did and ] ac-
cepted the offer, and written agreement was
drawn up to that effect. 1t was plump offer
on the part of Bouchard
| Did not take testimony before Urban; did
| before Shannon. The government was always
represented. ! knew no one in the case except
| Bouchard. Peychaud was never present;
| never saw him in connection with this case
until after Judgment was rendered.
| First saw Bellocq, Nobom d Co. 3 books In
| my office; don't remember any one exafnin-
| ing the books while in my Office except Jules
| Noblom; he was brought there through an
arrangement between him, Bouchard and my
self; don't remember that Bouchard ever
ment of the result Of the examination.
think that in every instance there was in
debtedness shown by the books on the part OF
the parties named in the tabulated statement:
there were some slight variations, but none Of
any importance; Bouchard was, / think,
present invariably during the examination,
and must have known the result Of il; I was
satisfied by the result Of the examination that
the accounts were correct. Peychaud was
never in my Office 70 examine these books.
NY connection with the case ended before the
termination Of the suit in the Court Of Claims
Had a difference with Bouehard. which
Forced us to project ourselves hosinst him by
suit TO stc Co., .@ rs culecton of our fee under
our agreement, and he afterwards employed
Judge Emerson. Have known Boucbard since
about 1866.
CRoss-ExAMINED.
Met Mr.. Fessenden while Examining wit
nesses, think, once; generally, however, met
| think, always before Shannon. Think Mob,
lom did not look for oil the accounts in the
statement filed in. the Court OF Claims
| commence the practice of law nominally
IN 1861 -as, however, absent during the war;
cor 4nenced again in 1865.
Have known Peychaud for many years Met
Mr.. Peychaud occasionally, on the streets
and at my office.
Never alluded to the Bolocq Noblom Il Co.
case or my connection Herewith, regarded
the man with whom 1 contracted as the i'm
portant man of the case to me.
Can't say just how many OF the books were
examined; only such as were needed to verify
| the tabular statement. DId not examine al
had already been verified by witnesses pre-
| vi0usy examined.
The books were not produced in the exam
] nation before the commissioner; the test
| mony was wholly parole. >.
The suit Of party against his creditors is a
| proceeding in bankruptcy. In such a proceed
Ing the books go to the syndic, when ap-
pointed. !,
Don't know what was done with the books
before they came to my Office.
Can't identify the books of the firm.
Did not search the books personally. a
| We received our fee of $4,000, which VASE
contingent fee, after the settlement OF the
| Judgment. If + had known Vallade was in
terested, should not have examined him. He
positively never told me anything of an in
terest which he had in the claim.
| REDIRECT.
claim in good faith and considered it an hon
| est one.
Asked if he knew the general reputation OF
| Bouchard for truth and verAcity in the com
| munity. Witness said-AmOng his aequaint
ances, I believe that do.
| Q.-From this reputation, would you be
lieve him under oath A--No
Objected to by prosecution and excluded.
chard among those among whom he dweIts
or with whom he is chiefly associated? Al
| believe do.
Q.-What is it? Al is very bad
Q.---Would you believe him under oath
Prosecution objected, and question ane
answer ruled out.
NV relations with Bouchard are not cordial
Ceased to be so about three years ago; am no
Oh speaking terms with him.
began to feel distrust of his character about
eighteen months before our suit. Ny father
distrust did not commence at that time, ant
not until told him of my. fears that Bouchart
was endeavoring to avoid the payment OF ou
fee under our contract.
Bouchards reputation for truth and verac
itv was bad long before our own distrust be
gan think we were among the last who places
confidence in him.
Prefer not to give names of persons VIII ex
pressed want of confidence in Bouchard
However. gave under instructions severa
names, and said they had had business witt
Beuchard, and expressed distrust OF Bou
|, chards statements.
These discussions of his character were sub
seauent to my employment by Bouchard
Never knew anyone who had known him Ions