| Title: | [Nathalie Smyth ?], [Donemana] to Gustave Lemle, [New Orleans?]. |
|---|---|
| ID | 3007 |
| Collection | Irish Emigration Database |
| File | Smyth, Natalie Bouligny/29 |
| Year | 1910 |
| Sender | Bouligny Smyth, Nathalie |
| Sender Gender | female |
| Sender Occupation | unknown |
| Sender Religion | unknown |
| Origin | Co. Tyrone, N.Ireland |
| Destination | New Orleans, Lousiana, USA |
| Recipient | Lemle, Gustav |
| Recipient Gender | male |
| Relationship | business |
| Source | Copyright Retained by Brendan O,Reilly, O'Reilly's Bar andRestaurant, Main St., Dromara |
| Archive | Original held by Above Donor. |
| Doc. No. | 9812031 |
| Date | 1/6/1910 |
| Partial Date | |
| Doc. Type | LTE |
| Log | Document added by LT, 24:12:98. |
| Word Count | 709 |
| Genre | |
| Note | |
| Transcript | Ardcame Gustave Lemle Esqu. My dear Sir, I have just received a copy of "Preliminary report on Smyth property" submitted by Frank G. Raynold atty [attorney?]. There is no date to the report but the date of course must be last month May 1909. A few days after I purchased the swamp lands from the State of Louisiana in 1873. Geo. [George?] T. Biott (not Robert E. Biott) told me that he had made application to the land office to enter sections 15 and 22 (101,22 acres) as the Spanish Fort Railway with which he was then connected ran through these sections and that I had been too quick for him and taken all the lands. I wrote and signed or signed a written paper by him stating that I would transfer the two sections to him. This is all the transference that ever was made by me, and Geo.[George ?] T.Biott never paid me a cent for the lands, and I never signed any natural act of transference. I should say that things of a written promise to transfer the [-------- ---- -----?] a real transference without my receiving any consideration whatever for them then George T. Biott had a title to the lands mentioned in the "Preliminary report." George T. Biott towards the last of his career in [is?] a rich man. New Orleans had no money to invest in lands of any description. While in the firm of Biott and Sons he was permitted to enter lands already sold by the state. This letter must be among Morg [Morgan?] Gurley's effects - wherever they are. The mistake of the land office, no doubt, was due to a change of administration and was made six or seven years after my purchases from the state. The New Orleans Land Company have no valid title to any of the lands, and they know it - How can they then be holders in good faith? The balance estimated to be due to the United State Government of $16555.25 is not due. I have a receipt from the Treasurer of the United States that my account is settled in full, and I should think that ends it. I will find the receipt and send it to you. On no account would I pay this claim. I don't think that the Government will ever try to collect. I will, however, write you more fully on this matter. Draught [draft?] of Docs letter to Lemle [---?] from the latters papers. Docs letter to Lemle in the Reynold' report. as to the titles of the "New Orleans Land Company and its assignees" to the New Bas-- [Basin ?] tract and to some lands along the river canal, I have to say that the state Land office allowed the New Orleans Land Company to enter some lands on the new canal, lands already patented to me and other portions not patented. The land office in reply to a written inquiry by Morg. [Morgan?] Gurley replied that it was a mistake in the land office and that the company should not have been It is very remarkable that not a whisper was ever heard of adverse titles to the sections sold for state taxes to Pierre [D.?] Olivier , until the sections were tranferred back to me, to my representative Morgan Gurley. That such transparent fraudulently manufactured titles could be set up to the lands while in the care of Morgan Gurley and his colleague Richardson without their opposition nay more than immediate action in opposition is wholly thereto beyond my comprehension. That Richardson is capable of manipulating titles to lands is well established. and the inference cannot be avoided that the adverse title was initiated by an expert skilled at the business. The Mc Can[?] and Conery[?] heirs should not overlook the fact that it was wholly owing to my holding on to the lands that saved them from loss, and Mr. Byron should know and remember that it was entirely owing to Edward Conery's request not to discharge Dowling when I told him I was going to do it that I have suffered [all?] loss. There is no gratitude in man and still he expects God to bless him. Well, the blessing has not come yet. |
