The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-02-07
A. BouC,HARD.

yesterday morning, continuing the exalnlDa
ton Of
Witness sid, in answer TO the prosecution
owned some property ON st. Philip street
between Prieur and Johnson The property
was held In my wife's name; lived on Maya
zine street; never owned property there
lived there until last July; since then hav,
lived In Alabama; have never been back TX
the Magazine street residence: my property
was sold to Judge Spencer.
Hoss-HxAMINHD.
Mr. Lapoint had q claim for schooner,
which was in Corwine's hands for collection
schooner Agnes there was recovered from
the government for the schooner Judgment
for St5,555. The Agnes was insured In the
Merchants Insurance. Company.
Learned. after took an Interest In the Bel
locq, Noblom y co. case, that the records
case never knew Of the petition It was
filed In February 1869, aud ] made my con-
tract In July, 1899.
In the schooner claim had no interest as
against the government Was not part
owner; had n mortgage note for $14 .00O. Col
claim was made In 1862. Lapoint did not get
the insurance money [ got 1T all: / had .
mortgage against the schooner for $4,000,
which was all my interest. and got the insur-
ance money as mortgagee.
The schooner belonged to Lapoint. I don't
think made any affidavit in the case of the
schooner claim; may have done 50, but think
not. Don't remember whether made state
ment under oath to the Attorney General In
the schooner c,1se; don't think made any
statement as owner.
Prosecution objected 10 this manner Of ex-
animation Sustained
In the schooner claim collected $15, 1856 from
the government, under power Of attorney from
Lapoint; half the money went to pay the ex-
pense Of collecting the claim; the other half
mortgage note which / held against the
schooner. Lapont lives near st. Elmo, Ala.
Barrett's name was John +. Barrett. First
met him In New Orleans in January, 1876
Think he remained about d couple Of months,
but don't remember ZEN Met him l. six or seven
House. He dined at my house shortly after |
became acquainted with him. He asked me
about the BellocQ, Eoblom u Go. claim. Mr..
Barrett read the letters which | had. They
were in Lapoints hands Don't know who
showed him the letters; ! was put on my
guard by learning that Barrett was a govern
ment officer. Barrett asked me In January
or February, 1876, 10 see the District Attor-
ney. First saw the District Attorney before
the Grand Jury. Barrett stated to me that,
tfs tII OtlCtl vi WIG VI OuSOlCNy lto
could promise me Immunity. Said Mr.. Beck
with would not prosecute me- Said Mr.. Beck
with had promised not to prosecute me If l
would give evidence.
Don't know that saw any one representing
Mr.. Beckwith before going before the Grand
Jury. Had an interview with Beckwith be-
fore went before the Grand Jury. Nothing
was said about the Bellocq, Noblom u Co.
case.
Went to Washington in April. 1879 and re-
.utS uf~~ -
1879 Returned to New Orleans about the
first or second Of August, 1878; remained till
October, 1878, and then went back to WASH
ington. Can't exactly remember the date OF
my arrival In Washington but It was some
time In October, 1879.
Capt. Pope was paid $500. He was paid
through Taylor Il Lowell. Don't know of my
own knowledge how Pope was paid. His
money was included In the $500 item which.
with the 20 per cent paid Taylor u Lowell for
(S66, 0f2 So) in the receipt given to Peychaud.
Mr.. Shannon was to get $4,000; he got only
$4500; my son kept $500. Shannon sent my
son q power Of attorney to collect the $4,000,
which he did, from Mr.. Peychaud. l advised
Shannon to send my son the power Of at
Mr. Shannon was first connected with the
suit In 1872. The suit was first instituted in
1868
Don't know how Barrett got at my letters;
they were not In my possession. Lapoint
never told me that he had showed the letters
to Barrett. never authorized him to show
them. My friendly relations with Lapoint
have never been interrupted. Have employed
Shannon in other cases. Never paid Shannon
In the Elgee case. Never paid him
In any case exceptas Mr.. Peychaud
paid him 5000 In this case.
After Mr.. Beckwith was removed / asked
him to give me rtified copies Of my papers;
he said he could not do so. but got them on
IN order from Mr.. Lacey. My object was to
forward them to the Attorney General; this
was Of my own motion.
made two or three affidavits; / made the
affidavit very much at Shannon suggestion:
it was made before Shannon / wanted Pey-
chaud to refund the money to the government,
which had been twice collected.
When found this had not been done, /
went to the Secretary Of the Treasury, and
WAS by him sent to Attorney General VIII
liams, who was not In the city, and saw As
sistant Attorney General johnson and told
him about the double payment.
He wanted me to make affidavit to that eff
feet. This said could not do, but would
furnish the names OF the parties to whom the
duplicate payment had teen made, II he would
hive payment stopped on the draft which was
sent 10 New York
AT the time made the first affidavit had
no agreement with the government nor any
ono alse. Myson made hfe contract Tor 10 per
ssant The 81 saFnIneAt q ne fell ~ 1876
SO