The New Orleans daily Democrat., 1878-02-16

that claim. ard as such authorized to- emplo!
counsel, work W testimony. etc. Also from th'
suit showing that he tTayior1 had never eve hatt
any communfc ition at all with Peychand. Bou
This. he urged. was the testimony Of the en-
gineer who had designed the whole machinery
put IT In motion and overlooked its workings
nlent claim-if fraudulent 1t was---and pressed
, Il to successful conclusion. And he says tina
he could not even hear from Peychaud, in con
|, nection with the case. but had, conducted /
, Throughout without communication with him
This gentlemen. is the kind of conspiracy there
was between these two men.
He also read from the testimony of ]. s. Bou
ehard. who said: The whole duty of prosecut
| ing the claim rested upon my father: Bernard
aud he alone had the management of 1t. em.
poying counsel. work ing up testimony etc"
How, in the face Of such evidence. sworn to
by the prime movers In the matter can Pey-
chnud be brought in as a eonfederate2
:, he also referred to tho testimony Of Judge
that hg hd neyr
that he. tBoncbardl was sole manager Of the case,
and said. # ever Il we're possible for truth to
to untruthfulness it then leaked out.
But suppose there Is evidence to show that
re6yenudI
the case yesterday told. you that conspiracy
was generally hatched In corner; that 4 was
secret ;n crime and argued that there could be
establish lis existence, but that creumstantial
evidence must be relied upon. and was far more
| satisfactory.
| Let us look this. If the circumstances relied
upon to establish the guilt OF the accused be cir-
cumstances which are consistent with his entire
| innocence, such. as would not convince you. be-
yond d. reasonable doubt. Of his guilt, the pre-
sumption OF innncence must stand % Green
lenf section 30, Has the evidence of this nature.
reasonable doubt of the defendants guilt 2
Then bring you direct and positive evidence
| to overthrow IL.
The charge in the Indictment is that the de-
| PENDANTS combined TO prosecute q, fraudulent
claim dagi against the United sttes based upon
o "a% bse 9y s See
conspiracy r tho second is the overt acts per-
formed In furtherance Of that conspiracy. These
consist. as charged, In the filing of petitions in
the Court of Claims suborning Of Witnesses
Here Mr. Hunt reviewed the case from the
filed, when the doors Of the court were about to
before the failure q Beoca. Nobom 4 o.. vi and
sworn to BY Pierre Roy and filed subsequent to
the failure and called attention to the harmony
Fl he ha 8eodn Of t NdSom Mo r n Tayo
take any further part in the pressing of the
claim because the proceeds would go, entirely
bena e bam 4ree and MWoud nq
Conway visited both Freret and Peycbaud, and
learned that ha there r. Was no money Of the estate
5neu and ha Gey s o nn 81 the
any funds themselves therefor.
Then the circumstance arose which made the
seeming connection Of ihe defendant with this
the existence OF the claim. Bouchard saw Tay..
lor. gand was informed by him that II he had
anything i,l more + to do with It. the contract made
by the syndfca. Bouchard then finds that Ber-
nard was In Washington. aud Knowing that he
was q friend OF Peychauds--as every worthy
1nynr kn ytba,,
you gentlemen shall have done him Justice and
set him free.I,approached him tBernardl in
Bernard had means. % and he Bouchard % had ' exs Us
perience in such cases, If Bernard would sup
ply the means for the, necessary preliminary
expenses. he Bouchardl would devote his time
and attention to tho management Of the case.
Bernard aasonted and procured the contract
ies from peyenaaud whp tbereaft.r trusted in and
Peyehauds trust being Bouehards association
with Bernard.
This contract does not bear the ear-marks Of
was filed in the Fourth District court in the
case OF Bellocq. Noblom IL Go. vs. their cred
tors n s.. the written approval Of the creditors of
acts OF consDirator? No; they are the acts Of
q careful. honest man. guiltless of any intent to
9mt "a tba ibme pfe m a Of Fresets zig
upon uloI 1Peyehyaud the whole blame. and was done
in the. Fourth District Court, which still con- |
tains Frerets signature.
been urged as an evidence of the fraudulent |
nature OF the claim: but government claims arc |
always dliicult and tedious, Of prosecution. |
with the Circnmlocution Office" of Great |
Britain, and the red tape" of our own treas
ryy uryy building 9, would not shame the Original:
after Judgment the papers had to pass through |
eight or ten different Offices in the treasuiy
pn,ldlang anhadg PEI before @ settem Mt was finally
1t the act OF q conspirator? The money was
not Peychand's; itonly came into his hands as
mItted fraud. perjury bribery and 1 subornation ,
OF perjury. l do not doubt; out is ii for that
vile caitiif, self-conyicted rs he is, to fasten
nf fraud? Does such evidence as that show
connection with conspiracy
q, NJ i ,1 Hunt I read from the amended petition
Of the allegations. and Of the prayer, with those
OF the first and second petitions; aud In con
aaston Win thls Is reading hetouched upon the
Y and "a, shoWed how under the State law beiloco,
Nobiom y Co entered upon constructive nos
session OF the cotton for which their claim was
thereon. ~
The amended petition was drawn up by Tay
pr, sent TO New Orleans for Peychauds attesta-
alton OF a,syndic Is not Of his own knowledge, L
out to his s, best knowledge and belief which Is
necessarily galneu principal y from others. III
would be a moekery of justice. a mockern Of
right mockery OF truth, to hold that he was
pound ,i, to Know OF his own knowledge all these
Is IL Leas0nab!e to believe that !h'man like
Henry Peychaud, with no interestfh his claim.
you'd ruin m his own ceharacvr; sully his
md plunge himself hesdIong into an abyss Of
nfamy and disgrace under circumstances like
hese. |
With the amended petition is filed, not new
abular statement, not even copy Of the origi-
lal. but the original statement itself. There is
.ations: no trace of falsehood. and Peychaud's
lttastation is simply that he believes the state
nant to be true. and is signed by him as syndic.
The confidence shown by Peychaud in Taylor.
ion, is only that which is necessary to the very
'xistenee of society: and the action taken by
him in this action was only that which 1t was
lis duty. to perform. Mr.. Hunt cited as to the
luthes of syndics. mayer vs.. his creditors,
La, '5339 The statement upon which the pc
ition WAS based was certified to by Jules No
'lem and Ne. Bablet bookkeepers, as correct.
As to Nal!ade's testimony, we are told that he
wore TO- one thing in June. and after his con-
ract with gouchard, in September. he swore to
mother: Peychaud was not connected with
his testimony; did not know of his testimony
Oft fob @b.u fol. |