The New Orleans daily Democrat., 1878-02-19
claim between divers persons and these defend

claim between divers persons and these DEFEND
II, the first place 1t must be shown that there
was this combination for that object; that is, TO
effect the presentation and collection OF this
az dla'f nf the estate Of Bellocu, Noblom 4 Co.
d That this claim. was false.
| g. That it's false character Was known 70 the
Iaiefendants. s.
The next question then for the jury to deter
mine is excluding for moment the question
| of iawfulness or unlawfulness- there {,
combination on the part Of the defepdants and
others. i'll which each labored with the com
mon purpose Of collecting this claim
by the government tends to, show that the de- l
fen1ant, Peychaud. as syndfc. presented the
claim that the evidence was taken betoae nnd tg
with IN agreement upon viii 3h / shall here
after speak. The evidence on this point IS not
contradeted, nor attempted to be contradctsn.
Ii. then, this combination existed to collect this
claim. the next question Tor the jury 70 considhr
is: Was this u false and fraudulent elaimi Ia
Jury to the statute Of the United States under
which oil petitioners or claimants nave 10 act
in the Court t q oams ,e asa bsng nm net en-
titled an act to prevent frauds upDn the treas
ury Of the United States Statutes at Large vol
section provides that call transfers, and as
signments hereafter made OF any, claim Z, upon
the United States, or any part or snare thsTeo, .,
| loss the same shall be made and executed after
the allowances OF such claims ana the ascer r.
anmeut OF the amsunt due fhd sne issuing Oh
| And the act to provide for the collection o1
captured and abandoned properly. found IN
volume H. Statutes at Large, page $40. prov dos
ANY person claiming to have been the own
| er Of any such captured and abandoned prop
| arly may at any time within two years, etc. pre-
| fer his claim to the proceeds thereon IN me
Court OF Claims and on proof to the sassiactloh
The snd M ph qt M s 3" @
| tho SdeductiOn Of any expenses, may receive the
Proceeds
| II will thus be seen that to have enabled the
defendant Peychaud to have brought the claim
| which he as syndie Of the firm of Bellocq. NO
blom & Co.. presented to the Court OF {. Claims
within these statutes. the interest OF Belloca
| Nobom u 20. in this cotton must nave existeu
ut the time Of its seizure by the Federal military
forces TO- wit II March lsf2 T pnd ttd tha Sntna aay
arising out Of the seizure OF this cotton after
that time. or the transfer OF any reeelpt. or
voucher therefor would have been IN Vlolatioh
There has been no evidence offered that there
was ANY transfer Of any interest IN tne clalul
FROM those who held tho same at date hfter
the issuance Of warrant III payment OF the
same by theTreasury department, and tho stat
ute renders yoid. all transfers Of cnims Unless
for their payment.
1t further appears by these statutes that any
Or y. had
seized by the United States and sold and the
proceeds paid into the treasury, must estap;
property and his right to these proceeds. ],
was under. these statutes chat the claim ,o
BelIocq. Noblom Il Go. was presented by =, tne de.
fendant, Peychaud. and was carried througs
the Court of Claims. a..
II is Insisted by the prosecution that, with the
cotton. the firm OF Belocu, Nobom Co: has
no right. title or interest in or9o any or this
cotton at the time Of it's seizurs by the authori
ties OF tho United States.
For the purpose of supporting thisview
has brought before you the testimony q mani
OF the persons enumerated in the tabular state
ment attached both to the original and amended
petition from whose plantations tho cott on was
Iaken. who estihed that they owned the same
and they have in express terms denied that tn
Peychaud as their syndic. had at any time al,
It's pr proceeds There has been no contradiciory
testimony introduced to show any tsae in Bel
, loea. Nobiom Co.. Or in the defendant Pey
chaud. as their syndic. excepting that which
comes from the, evidence given in the Court Q
ii the Jury are satisfied that the claim OF Bel
Iocq, Neb!om & o.; as presented by them ehnt
the h syynd m
ceeds was d valid claim. then that conclusion
would end this case. and your verdict must b.
70 present and collect fraudulent claim wher
the claim alleged to have been presented ant
collectedwas valid. But # on the other hant
by Henry T90oR
tad their osynae thst wa fss
il any portion of the 1851 bales of cotton claime'
by them, or him. the, proceeds Of which was re
Bsoca Nobo o hsm 70
. claim was false. and the jury will have to pas
to the second question: Did the defendants a
in the presentation or collection Of this clain
know OF the false and fraudulent character 0
the same2
First, az relates to the defendant Peychaud:
shall first presentto you In summary man
nerthe leading facts which the government ha
attempted to establish in this case. and thel
, shall present to you the leading facts which th
defense has attempted to establish.
The. government. in the first place. has offered
In Wbeh 6e AYERS eo ony 81 m m
original petition of Belloc1 Noolom & Co.. tho
, the said firm had made advances upon this cot
ton with the right to reduce the same into pos
session; but he AYERS atthey became the own
ers. and hhat all of the said cotton was pur
chased by, them or taken for advances on tht
. 1861 and 1s62epror to tho first day of May 1862
Tho second factwhichethe government has
brought before you Is an agreement between
Peychaud. as syndic, and Bouchard and Bern
ard. In connection with this agreement. thu
government has offered tho tesi mony Of Bou
ehard !. So far as his testimony Is concerned.
plice or co-conspirntOr who Is called as witness
and testifles to his own criminal acts does
so far as relates to crediblity. He may tell the
, truth in spite of his proclaimed turpitude
but as q rule he Is not to be believed unless
and except so far as his evidence Is corrobor
ated by that Of other witnesses. or by independ
ent circumstances.
1t is. therefore. to the other evidence adducet
by the government from other sources thai
your attention will be largely directed.
AS to this agreement between Peychaud, ,as
!syndic. and Bouchard and Bernard. it is not do
MED that the agreement was executed by the
defendant as syndic. The agreement itself re-
cites that 1t Is for the services which BoucharC
and Bernard were to render In this. case. anG
Peychaud as syndic agrees to, give them two
thirds of the amount which he should collect
from the United States by means OF the suit. they
paying the fees of the various attorneys that is
to say. that the estate Of Bellocu. Noblom 4 Co
vsls to receive one third of the amount collect
ed from the government, and Bouchard an6
Bernard the remaining two-thirds they paying
the various attorneys.
tits for the jury to say what was the real pur.
pose Of this agreement, and what inference
should be drawn from it's execution. and
whether syndic in a case where there were
three lawyers already employed !. and where ht
believed there was no fraud In claim. woulc
have engaged the services OF Q man Of suct
reputation as the evidence shows Bouchard to
have been, and would have left the conduct o.