The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-02-12

| charge FIXTURES. and there vas no neeessit,
| for tie actual payment Of money.
TO The cotrtIWss not present. at the settle
| ne,t Ia pevella,,d's Office with BUuchard.
MIR HUNT, or THE DEFENSE,
read to the jury the deposition Of j . s. Bo,i
nhard In the stiit Of A. BDuehard against ttit
estate Of bernard and others also the reti,
ton Of A. Beuehafd, IN the same suit. f1l
sT424. being uie-half Of the claim IF 7, Val.
lade, which was included IN the Biology
Noblum " CD nlaln, settling forth that Vallladt
was to bring no suit himself therefor; ti'a'
vallade's share Of the Judgment, after pay
Ing Boicbard and Bernard tlelt two-thirds
amounted TO Sl4s49 and that. w agreement
with vallade. Bouehafd was entitled to one
half thereof. OF $742t. and TINT the wholeola a
inn been paid to Valade be tRDuchardl was
enfitl,al to recover from THE estate Of BeloeI
Npbluln n Co, and asking Judgment against
The estate for the amount alleged to- hive beer
ovpfpaid to Yalade.
MIR AUSTIN. or THE DHFENsE
offered III evidence q letter from IT, II Shan
non to Buuehard..
Objected TO by Mr. Blair, Of the prosecution
Objection ovetruled and letter read to the jury
COLLINS ADAMS
recalled L went 10 Texas In 1854. / sold tb g
son Of Theodore valadp cotton at the gin,
supposed to he about 100 bales, said IN ny
former testimony that had "a bales Of cotton
OH my plantation, belonging TO r,yset. anu
niy eistel-in-law, which was seized IN 1903.
ia the Prosecution had "a bales seized In
1868 ] sold what cotton was left by the Fed
erals I'd Ulrieh Vallade, sut Of Ihepdufe, w
lade, who took receipt from tiiein his fathers
name This cotton had 10 connection with
The seized cutb,l.
II. u. sMttHs
Knew Barrett and Cunningham when they
were here; think Barrett was employed py
Tie government IN working up cotton casea
don't know about Tunninghan's employment
hv the government: think hh was s'itnnoned
as a witness
Know A Bourha,l Asked in regard to the
relations Of Jarrett Cunningham and A
levy blacltnail upon the defendants IN this
ease. as Learned ft,,,t Buliellard, objection was
made by the prosecution. which was over,
ruled and Witness continuing, Satd: BOucharti
never said anything To me, to make me be
lieve that he was engaged In conspiracy t,
levy aalatkmail
Know Kendall. but not intimately; finder
stood that he was connected with Barrett and
Cunningham when Barrett was here. Shown
what purported to be o copy Of an affidavit
e,iitt' from d newspaper witness said | think
have seen the original; think ! published il
myself Don't know what became Of the
original II was sent UP as copy and neysl
saw ii again.
MR. WILDE.
Know Kendall, Barrett and Cunningham
| III connection with Boucha1d, III relation ttt
| this case. The same paper Submitted 70 thf
| former witness shown to this one, WHO sait
it seems to lie copy Of the affidavit referred
to-
Asked If he knew Of conspiracy between
Barrett, Cunningham and Kendall In enlitlec
ton with Buucharh for the purpose OF levy
Ing blatlSlnail Objected to and ruled out.
Know Of their consoliing together. saw
them together quite often about the. time this
Indictment was found. Saw Buuci,aid with
Barrett about the time Barrett was working
IN this case Boueba,d himself never made
me any proposition
Asked II either If the others had done 81
fol l,ouchald Prosecution objected and the
objection was sustained.
Don't know Of Bouchard's connection will
the conspiracy from Buuthard himself.
Asked what he knew from Barrett, Gun
ninghain and Kendall Objection was made
and sustained.
o1ycatt what came from them, | do not
know anything to connect Buuthatd with the
conspiracy.
The court then adjourned until II o'clock
this morning. when the hearing of testimony
will be resumed.