The New Orleans daily Democrat., 1878-02-19

and and collected, the Testimony of Vailade who
testified in subatancss that The cotton belonged
aes aReoh aer the esnony nc had been used
but before he had made the collection then, and
in either OF these case. far at least as these 263
fraudulent character of the claim Of Bellocq,
Noblom & Co, thereto.
5000 tq the defendant shannon: Of Of
hands y" Jossp u as sE hs aorney %
A. Bouchard and Bernard sl4. .s4s which accord
Peychaud signed by Joseph $. Bouehard as the
attorney Of his father. was to meet other de-
o Z sea apf nnd you viii
from the amount left in Bouchards hands-that
is to say, from the numerical figures Of that
2G3 bnles-and from oil the circumstances In evi-
dence before you, whether Mr.; .Peeychaud knew
hs yo INA '9 70 90 be e aet as to this
money being left In tho hands of young Bon-
chard you will consider as reasonable Ja,1 men in
Witnessed by Mr.. Peychaud. and with the other
fncts In this case,,
money to Vallade. or whether it was paid by
Bodchard, provided Peychaud knew Of Val
LADIES' ownership of the cotton-of Vallades tes- les
timony and OF its use in q suit against the
is for you to consider why the defendant Pey
chaud, was selected to be- the attesting witness
to this agreement; whether he, knew of the
terms Of tho agreement which he Witnessed;
whether Vaade did or did not require that he
should witness 1t in order that, since the
money was to go through the hands Of Pey-,
ohaud. he should have that added security that
tho proportion covenanted to be paid to him
should reach its destination.
You will observe that this paper ,recites that
h Of as oS ws Of at Gi he
time of its exeeu ion urging his claim in the
Court Of Claims. and that the agreement goes
on to provide for the distribution of the pro-
ceeda in case there is n recovery by PeyChaud as
the property of Belloca. Noblom d Co.
l think these are the chlei circumstances ,
which the government has attempted to estab-
'''15 On the other hand, tie, defense has adduced
evifence tending to establish that the con
CCfs.ims was left chiefly to Bouchard The
OF yo No'am a ws es as the ayG
of several experts who have exam ined the
same. And lastly; by the testimony Of many Of
ollr most excellent citizens. has been shown the
high character of the defendant Peychaud, for
iife Of sixty years passed in their midst previ-
oSS So f. far as the defendants knowledge from the
books OF Bellocd. Noblom d GO. Is concerned.
t in criminal case there, Is no inyincible pre-
Y edge which proper execution of ! his trust
would hnye required him to gain. It Is not u
@ meter e G 1e5 You Gs
! chaud had to them; the magnitude m Of
+ ant Peycbaud owed alike to the estate and to
the government. to haye made a satisfactory
Of hs G ns m be2fe Rs he bes of a
@ validity and oil the circumstances which have
been given In evidence and fhen are & to sny
sfossR fsfts Or othsrs i' s@d 81
yasv q sqb ibis M R the e time g whom he
y made the affidavit and during all the
y Intervening time down to the period when
IF ne 9Rs'tGa Rs tme be beesed the Claim or any
}, portion Of it was fraudulent m re then all /. his
v deemed In law to have Joined the conspiracy tG
= collect fraudulent claim.
. So far ns relates to the proof OF good charac-
), tor or the reputation enjoyed by the defendant
i Tho good character of an accused person is
# always q fact to be considered by the jury. Il
}. should lead the jury to scrutinize the evidshce
. adduced in support OF the commission Of the
3 anG nfr and fhs 81
y considered as an independent fact in favor Of
d the accused.
v testimony In favor Of good character has been
o made and this effect given to it, the whole evi
d denee in the case is sufficient to warrant con
d yiction the Jury are not authorized to withhold
Il from the other evidence its proper effect, or tc
i refuse to draw from it the legitimate conclu-
bs re whc
!. it would furnish EVIDENCE which would ereateo'
d reasonable doubt OF guilt; there are also cases
o accused could not overcome the weight of testi.
8 mony in support Of guilt That is to say, good
Msfhsd 1T It is to- be &C and weghed
"a along with the other testimony, and must not
n be- allowed to obscure from your observation
Again. it is urged by the Defense that the
defendant Peychaud was mere syndic In his
ssoR Eh gsd ha e pressnsd ns ia this h cnm
tie @eSs sate D"5f B Beda s Co
d Ii tho evidence fails to show that any
9 was Intended to be retained or was retained BY
t the defendant Peychaud beyond his commits
: sion syndic this fact does not obliterate the
other facts you will find to have been established
q the motive for tie commission OF the crime
g Charged. but beyond that leayes@he other facts
s have established them to be.
n Next as to the defendant Shannon. II the
u find there fbab m To- b and that the
: shannon. the same inquiry must be made as
/ have stated should be made with reference to
s the falslty and fraudulent character Of this
8 claim. The prosecution have !. introducsd evi-
snng to shoW the fact that the
5 ise Of 5000 eior taking ths e. evidence ] IN 2
: commissioner with reference to the taking of
testimony is open to very serious. objections
1 that 1t would expose the commissioner to Sc
t we're criticism and would open wide door. for
to him BT it IS not Is
: whether in this case the agreement was EVIL
9 dence Of any knowledge Of the falsity of the
: claim or Of any understanding between the de-
fendant shannon and those with whom he
1 made It, that there was to be anything unfair
: oropartial In the manner OF taking the testi-
t mOny.
y Bouchard has made a statement as to what
8 passed between him and the defendanteShan-
i non.
In connecioR with the evidence relating to
4 the defendant, Peychaud. l have already laid
z down the legal propositions which should be
: mony of witness such as is Bouehard,a There
9 Is the testimony Of the witness Wilde and there
is letter from the defendant Taylor. and also
9 letter from the defendant to j. $, Bouchard
9 which think comprises all the evidence which
1 has been urged against the defendant shannon.
, dence of the younger Mr.. Conrad and Of MI.
Z Rouse who ranreSented the government and