The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1898-06-24
THE CHARGE:
TOTHE JURY.
Continued from frat page.

| Continued from frat page.
The members Of the bar lockel TO the
U. S. Court room this morning to hear th,
charge Of the court to tho Jury In the
Clark ease. It was 1l27 O'CLOCK when
Judge Bradford entered tho COURT. IL
delivering tho charge. he said Ia part after
reviewing the charge against tho def6nd-
ant: "Tbeindictmont originally contained
40 counts. Several counts have bppn
abandoned. You will bear in mind the
number Of counts that have heeu abandon
ed SO that you do not got nstray. the
defendant is charged with adm and abet.
ting William N. Boggs to unlawGully alb
abstract and misapp!y the funds OF tho
First National bank at Dover for the Use
and benefit Of the defendant with tho in
toni to defraud and injure.
In order to warrant q conviction you
must he satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt that he had the intent to >injure or
defraud tho bank and that no aided and
abetted William N. Boggs.
To warrant conviction under tho 18th
and 10th counts you must bs satisfied that
Boggs and the defendant conspir ID to mis-.
apply the moneys, funds, etc, of tao bank
to injure and defraud the said bank.
In case like this the law will not per-
init q defendant 10 be prosecuted or pun.
ished unless the indictment Is found with.
in three years from the time tho act or
acts have boon committed. The defend.
ant cannot DO found guilty upon any act
committed prior to April 25, 1893 But
while you cauno, flnd the defendant guilty
on acts prior to April 25 1895. you are at
liberty to consider such checks, ifany have
been proved not TO convict tho defendant,
but to show his intent
The law presumes every man innocent
until by evidence he is proven guilty. 70
justify verdict OF guilty, tho EVIDENCE
must DO such AZ 10 exclude every possible
doubt as to tho defendants guilt. You are
to take into this case all the evidence, to-
gether with all reasonable infereloe5.
A reasonable doubt Is not mere guesS
II upon consideration you cannot TRUTH
fully say you have clear idea and no
doubt. you arc not to BIO controlled by
anything that has been or may be said BY
the Court you arc only to give tho testl-
mony such weight as 1T is entitled to,
1t is admitted that Boygs was a defaultef
to the extent of $lO7,000
The evidence Of l. ID. Boggs was that tho
defendant had small balances at the bank
and was not aware of the checks given by
the defendant. William N Boggs has de-
posed to tho two notes and the payment OF
checks. Do or do not the entries In the
individual ledger show the truo condition
of tho defendants account as deposition.
the defendants pass book The defendant
availed himself Of the opportunity to
testify but failed to say that bis books
were lost or made complaint nbout the ac.
Curacies of his account There is evidence
that on May 0, 1893 Cuthbsrt & Co.. re-
ceived check Tor 1850 from the defendant
On the Frat National bank Of Dover. Tho
[uuds OF that bank paid the check.
On May IA another check was received
by Cuthbert & Go. Tho check was paid
out of the funds of the bank. Reference
was made to the two SO checks drawn by
Clark.
These checks are the only ones to which
jhe Indictment now charges this defeud'
INT. An accompllce Is a competent wit.
less.
Tho weight to attach to.sucb witness
testimony Is matter for the jury. In
his case you are to determine whether or
lot Boggs has been oorroborated OH con-
rodicteI by other evidence. The defen-
liant has testified and you should consider
low far his evidence Is worthy OF credit.
Where a witness has an interest In q case
he temptation Is strong to prevent or
all to testify to all tho facts.
All the witnesses for the defense with
he exception Of Foard and Mugee are I'M
er an indictment in this court for aiding
Id abettinR Boggs in wilfully ABSTRACT
ng and misapply the funds Of tho bank
( you aro satisfied the defendant from
1903 to November 1856 drew checks when
is balances were insulflcientit is for you
J say whether 1t was the same Intention.
And il so what that intention was. The
videnca of the defendant goes to show Of
honey borrowed Is 1t corroborative Of the
,stimony Of William n. Boggs or notp
'ou have tho evidence.beforo you.
a question for you to consider lsrFsa}.- --'
TINS: .uas William N. BoGgs beer coh
radicteds Your ure sole judges OF tns
illnesses and the documentary evldenoe'
tho evidence satisfies you bayonh rea'
unable doubt then your verdict should 10
no of guilty. II on the other hand there
a reas onabe doubs thea your verdict
louid be ono of not guilty
A man may ov1rdraw his account In
ank and be innocent of any fraudulent In
,nt But no man with balance has the,
ght to draw checks for largo amounts
'ithout the knowledge of the proper Of
cals and Boggs was not tho proper officer,
this bank. il the defendant knew the
lecks wore to BIO paid out Of tho funds Of.
10 bank instead Of tho private funds Of
oggs then the unlawful intent Is shown.
The transfer OF Clark account to Bnrgs>
,ud not absolvr him from tho act. 1t Is
! the bond wholly immateral in this case
our veriic6 should represent the opinion
each individual member of tho jury"
GU should consider well tho evidence and
view the grounds among yoursolves,k
he guilt or Innocence OF this defendant
to be determined by you upon tho evil
,n1e alone. Tho court concluded the
large at o'clock.