The New Orleans daily Democrat., 1878-02-06
THE RELLOCa-NORL0rz CASE
yafth nays Proceedings 49, Eek animation of
nnsnhnrd Continued.

III A. BoUCHAID.
iii taking testimony TO establish the claim,
Jules hobIom was the first Witness examined !
hs WINS first examined in 1870. MI Feychauo
was NOT present. peychaud sent mo to
Hobiom to got his testimony. His deposition
was not satisfactory. and nPoyohhnd, our At
torney aud MYSELF agregd to let The matter
rest there. 80 far as he was coheerneh, ana
not proceed further upon his testimony WAS
told afterwarf that The deposition wns burned ,
told SO by Urban, before whom it was taken.
hid npt ask for tho deposition when | paid
Urban. Don't know whether tho first deposi-
tion had been destroyed ut tho time OF taking
his second testimony. am sure ithad not thou
been burned
1 called on Taylor for, my share OF tho
nef;s in his family he had been called from
Washington and had not had the opportunity
IA, look after my interests; he advised me to
40 to Now York and endeavor to collect there,
telling me that one OF the drafts Issued to
PByehaud had gone there; ! did so ii was Of
no sail, and returned and told Taylor that
| must be paid that i was not paid !
would make them all refund This was Sep
ternber "a. 1874: on September ~, 1874, was
paid by Peychaud.
GROSS -ttx AMINED.
Was born in Canada am ~ years old; am
n farmer, have been looking after claims
against tho government for ten years past
ann still interested IN u few claims, one Of my
sons went TO Washington to study law. and
#tenography; also to aid IN taking care Of our
claim this last was his principal business.
Ha haa now u contract with the government
In connection with This oalm tlHye II iett"t.
which says TINT he Is to receive 40 per eent Of
The amount recovered. Knew M Barrett IN is1S %,
Judge Flagg. Of the parish Of .St. John the
Baptist Walked to the Capitol With Barrett
from Wizards; we did NOT talk about
cotton elaims Don't. think he knew of ny
connection either with this or with other
claims. Am sure he was not at that time q
detective. Met him him hore Ia 1875. at No. II
Rampant street. He sent Peter Kendall for
nae: did not see any one else there; have seon
Cunningham few days after my first visit
To Barrett saw Cunningham and Kendall ut
Barrctts house, but we were not together In
ono room. Did not know when first went.
To see Barrett that he was o detective. Did
not, when he sent for me-, know that u was
the same Barrett whom | had met In Wash
times; went with shannon as well as Gun
ningham. Went before the Grand Jury
in February, 1876: did not refuse to answer
questions; was sent to prison for not pro.
ducing certain papers, then 10 The hands Of
days the papers were surrendered; these
papers were not IN my possession, but In the
hands Of Mr.. Lapoint; he was my friend and
had been interested with mo in business,
had oecasion to go to Baton Rouge In June.
papers and arrange them; Lapoint WAS there
and assisted him; they saw these papers and
put them aside. Mr.. iapoint. after my
second interview with Rarrett, took
Tho papers m to h keep for me 9n psr,d owlag
The Grand Jury asked me to get the papers
from Lapoiut: Lapoint refused to give them
mp until after we had lain In prison seven
days The papers are the ones produced In
evidence yesterday The naIno Of treret may
ArtTs hrny JnI hxyvr l Hfyf RAM l1Nrf
whether erased it or not; don't think did.
LII did, 1t was after Freret wtis dead The
handwriting OF the agreement. is that Of my
nephew. There is no erasllre OF Freret's name
In this paper. The words added are In my
swn hand. Submitted to tho jury.
REu1Gss.
After recess, tho cross -exa Examination of Bo,I-
shard continued:
There were many other papers besides tho
contract which have identified in Lapoint's
possession, about fifteen or twenty. They
were contracts, letters. etc. believe there
were other letters.
Prosecution objected to the inquiry as to
what other papers had been given TO Lapoint.
on the ground Of their having been used be-
fore the Grand Jury. Objection oyerruled.
Witness resuming There were two or three
more letters from vallade. one from Taylor,
some from Lowell, and some from Peychaud.
The second agreement between Peychaud,
Bernard, Bouchard, Lowell and Corwine was
that of 1871 There was o third contract,
which has reference to, yallade, The second
agreement Is the one In which Taylor was
recognized, Mr.. Bernard was sugar broker
here; he was associated with me la this mat
ter; proposed 1t to him IN August. 1868, he
wac man OF means; he did perform acts In
The matter, by referring, me TO Peychaud for
information; this was In 1870; don't know
that any one heard him tell me to no to Pey-
ehaud. He is now dead. brought suit
against Bernards estate; identified the de-
position In that proceeding as that Of his son.
msse rs saa my ydeR aSRHsSa ha a ,tng gnaon afs ths
the Bernard suit Mr.. Bernard once fur
nished $40 to pay Noblom for examining the
books; also other small sums.
In Washington. about August Is, 1868, met
Mr.. Dezin. Mcclure called on me and asked
II knew Bellocq, Noblom Il Go. said did |
but that they were In bankruptcy; promised |
10 tind out who the assignces were and let |
him know. Soon after saw Mr. Bernard and
Bernard suggested that we should make q |
rontract with Peyehaud for ourselves. which |
we subsequently did.
Mcclure had told mo chat hc had the pa
pers of Bellocq, Noblom Il Go. in large cot
Ion claim.
We first demanded thrce-nuarters OF what
se could recover; Peychaud refused, saying
hat Freret would not agree to such an extra
gagant percentage Don't think I ever saw
freret about IT, Freret is dead P,eychaud
offered us two thirds, and We ac-
,eptcd the offer and tho contract was com
pleted Mr. Corwine was q lawyer In good |
Standing, living in Cincinnati, but practising
n Washington. Afterwards we employed
seo Taylor with him.
AT this point the prosecution objected to the
nrther progress Of the examination until
sfter the reading Of the deposition Of Bou-
hard IN his case against the estate Of Bernard.
)verruled.
Witness resuming Geo Taylor appeared
u attorney when the first petition was filed
had nothing to do ut that time with employ
ng Taylor. He was q lawyer OF good reputa-
ion In Washington, as was also his associate
sir. Seward. II was agreed that should re-
,eive two-thirds of the amount recovered. /
considered ii a good fee; the general fee Is 50
,er cent; have offered to collect claims for
,lanterS for 80 per cent.
When came from Washington in May
s75, i had suits against Mr.. Peychaud; ex-
Imined then the schedule flied in the Fourth
District Court and saw names of planters
here which did not figure In the suit before
he Court Of Claims. at once wrote to them
il; ! found also, that several planters had