The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-02-08


Doa't recall any case.in which members of
the bar expressed any opinion In regard to
BouchArd.
Never saw an examination conducted more
properly than the one in the case before
Shannon, ut which | was present in Bou-
ehard's behalf. Never knew him (shannonj
10 say anything, excerpt when reading what
had brcn written down. Never saw an ything
which would give the impression Of any inn
prooper connection, on the part OF Shannon,
with witnesses.
G. NJ. CONRAD.
Know Bouchard; was employed by him
professionally In tho Belloea, Noblom IL Co
case to examine witnesses.
The arrangement was made with myself for
o. contingent fee OF s5OOO
Never had any consultation with Peychaud
In regard to the case. Examined all the wit
nesses brought to New Orleans. when was ia
the city
Went to Washington for Bouehatd in con
necti0n with the case, and consulted with Cor
wine, Lowell and Taylor
Had at that time mo reason to suspect Bou-
chard's good faith La the prosecution Of the
claim Had no knowledge Of any agreement
on the part OF witnesses with Bouchard which
would give them an interest in the claim
Had o difference with Bouchard, and ceased
to he his counsel
Was employed by Peychaud in connection
with the Bellocq, Noblom u Go. Gaze after the
rendition OF judgment.
The difficulty with Bouchard was In regard
to my compensation.
Saw Peychaud on my return to New Or
leans, and showed him q note from Bouchard,
stating that Judgment had been rendered In
the Bellocq, Noblom y Go. case by the Court
OF Claims and advising him PeychaudD to
employ Taylor to collect the money.
advised him Peychaud) TO the contrary,
saying would place no confidence in any
thtngothat Bouchard might say.
went on to Washington to attend to my own
In +, ipf II RI wa
which intervenes between Judgment by the
Court Of Claims and the payment thereof.
Peychaud came on later with Father Subj
leau. ! advised him (PeychaudD not to make
arrested and forced to settle the claims Of the
Northern creditors Of the Bellocq, Noblom II
Co. estate inoWashngton while the most of
the claims were held IN Louisiana, and should
be settled in that State.
On this advice Peychaud avoided showing
himself In Washington. Don't remember that
Peychaud gave Father SubiIeau a power OF
attorneyto collect the claim frorPthe treasury.
Witness was ut this point excused on at~
count OF FILLING strength)
FATHER JOSEPH sUBIIEAU.
!, Am priest of the Catholic Church. Have
known Peychaud ten years. Did not go to
Washington expressly to meet him, but on
coming from Canada met him at Fredericks-
burg. He was with Mr.. Conrad. Went to
Washington with them !; he gave me his power
u.
Bouchard in Washington. Saw also Lowell,
Taylor and Corwine.
Peychauds attorney advised him not to 60
to Washington. Peychaud told me to CON
tinue my relations with his attorney who was
Mr.. Conrad. Mr. Conrad feared an attach
ment against Peychaud by the Northern
creditors of Bellocq Noblom Il Co. He feared
an arrangement between Bouchard and the
lawyers to have the attachment issued Saw
Bouchnrd there twenty times; Taylor twice.
the agreement left by Bouchard with the
lawyers as to their compensation; Bouchard
told me that there was such an equivocation,
and he thought that he could make use Of
this cquivocation TO reduce the amount of the
lawyers compensation.
Corwine told him that the lawyers were
smarter than Bouchard, and expected to col
lect the money from the treasury themselves.
Bouchard told me the only share Taylor
and Seward could take was $685. 900 ($59,212 S0);
the $4,000 (S6sOO) was for certain expenses in
connection with the taking of testimony. He
said it the $4,000 was for the taking of testi-
mony. Nothing further was said that l rec
ollect.
IShown checks] Never saw these checks,
that know. The checks were brought to
Davidge a lawyer Of Washington. / came to
New Orleans with Peychat1d; ne brought q
check or checks back; don't know how many
Dont't know Vallade, but was IN Peychaud's
Ol1Ce when tIc llIlHl SeCtleIHe1lL WAS maze,
present, yallade, Bouchard and Peychaud
Peychaud paid Bouchards son. Bouchard's
son then told him to pay Vallade. Peychaud
refused saying he had nothing to do with
Vallade; didn't know Valade. .Borlchard
might pay vallade if he chose, but he Pey-
cbauD would have nothing to do with VAL
lade at ell.
Bouchard told me in Washington of Pey
ohtud's connection with the case, and said
that he was uneasy at Peychaud's not coming
to Washington.
Bouchard s s..a he had never known a more
honest man than Peychaud or more disin-
terested one.
Questionable he tell any circumstance
or instance of, Mr. Peychaud's dis
Answer Yes. Question
What was 1t? Objected to by the prosecu ion.
Objection sustained.
1 understood that Bouchard said yesterday
that Peychaud tacltly accepted the said prop
osition, to take an interest in the two-thirds
fee to be allowed to Bouchard Il Bernard for
the collection of the claim.
At this point the court adjourned until this
at