Evening journal., 1898-05-16
THE JURY IS HUNG.
CONTINUED From First Page)


above defined. is sufficient.
A number Of reputable witnesses, whose
testimony has not been impeached, contra
dicted or discredited I'm any manner. have
testified that FOR many years last past
the reputation OF the defendant for hon
esty and itegrity in the communities In
which he has resided during that period
has been good. This testimony is evidence
in favor OF the defendant and is before
you for your consideration In connection
with the other evidence In the case. In
all cases In which a person accused OF a
crime involving dishonesty and want Of
integrity. is on trial, his good reputation
for honesty and integrity or. as II is
sometimes styled, his good character for
honesty and integrity. Is properly to be
submitted to the jury. The purpose OF
such testimony is to enable the jury to
determine the degree or improbability
that the person on trial, who possesses
suchla reputation, should have committed
such crime what weight is to be given
to the good reputation OF the defendant
rests solely with the jury. The circum-
stances I'm one case may be such that an
established reputation for honesty and
integrity on the part OF the defendant
would create q reasonable doubt as TO
his guilt, although without such reputa-
ton the evidence In the case would be
convincing and justlfylng a verdict Of
guilty. In another case the circum-
stances may be such as would require
verdict OF guilty Notwithstanding an es-
tablished reputation for honesty and in
tegrlty on the part OF the defendant
II does not necessarily follow from the
fact that man has n good reputation
for honesty and integrity that he actually
possesses those traits of character. The
mere possession of-such reputation does
not render the person possessing 1t incap-
able OF committing a crime involving dis
honesty ana a want OF integrity. II Is
within the common knowledge OF man
kind that many persons bearing a good
reputation have nevertheless been guilty
OF crime. While the reputation OF the
defendant for honesty and itegrity is
for your consideration as part of the evil
dence in the case. II Is entitled TO just
the weight no less and no more-which
you, upon a review Of all the evidence in
the case and in the exercise OF "A sound
Judgment shall attach to IT,
There is uncontradicted evidence, and
4 is admitted by the counsel for the de-
fendant, that William N. Boggs, at the
time Of his flight from Dover, on May
20 1897, was a defaulter TO the amount
of siO7 .O00 and that that sum represent
ed moneys OF The First National Bank
of Dover. which he had while receiving
and paying teller OF that bank, unlawful
ly cmhezzled. abstracted or misappied.
IN violation OF section 5209 OF the revised
statutes OF the United States. 1t also ap-
pears from the uncontradicted testimony
IN tho case that within few days after
the flight Of William n. Boggs, his de-
falcatlon was discovered by the officer OF
the bank. and upon investigation ascer-
tained to amount to the above mention
cd sum. Irving ID. Boggs, who was book
keeper OF the bank, testified that It's indi-
vidual ledger contained entries showing
the balance due from time to time to the
defendant as one OF its deposltors. and
also tho overdrafts made by the defend
ant from time TO time as a deposltor.
This testimony covers a period extending
from May Z, 1896. Inclusive until the
flight OF William n. Boggs. Irving ID.
Boggs further testified that whenever he
received a deposit from any OF the de-
posltors OF the bank he did on the same
or next following day, enter In his own
HANDWRITING the amount thereof In the
individual ledger to the credit of the de-
positor. and further that when William
N. Boggs. as receiving teller, reported
20 him. Irving D. Boggs. the amount OF
any deposit which he, William n. Boggs
had received, he, Irving d. Boggs, woulC
In like manner enter the amount thereof
IN the Individual ledger 90 the credit OF
the person reported by William n. Boggl
to have made such deposit William n
Boggs testified In effect that whenever
any deposit was made by or on accoun
OF the defendant he either correctly re
ported that amount to Irving d. Boggs
the bookkeeper, for entry In the indlvid
ual ledger to the credit of the defendant
or IN case OF the absence OF Irving d
Boggs, truly and accurately made sucl
entry In the individual ledger himself
It appears from the testimony OF william
N. Boggs and Irving ID. Boggs that tn
entries to the individual ledger relating
to the defendants account We're so car
ried on as to accurately show the condi
tion OF his account as a depositor at al
times within the period above mentioned
Those entries are before you, not as In
dependent evidence of themselves. but a
proper for your consideration in connec
tion with the testimony OF William n
Boggs and Irving ID. Boggs, as tending
In connection with that testimony. {
show the amounts OF the balance
whether due from the defendant to tn
bank or from the bank to the defendant
The deposit book OF the defendant wa
and is In evidence. T. Edward Ross, IN
expert accountant testified that he foun,
after investigation. that the balances 1
the deposltbook since April, 1896, CORES
pond exactly with the balances in IN
defendants account In the individual ledl
er, and further that he did not find I'm tt
defendants deposlt-book any depos
which had not been entered In the ind
vidual ledger You should bear IN min
that In view OF the fact that the banl
book came from the defendants posse
sion. II is reasonable to conclude that ha
II not contained entries OF all deposi
made by him he would have been awal
Of the fact. The defendant although
witness In the case. has not question,
either the accuracy OF the entries in h
own deposit-book or the entries OF ba
ance as shown in his account in the il
divldual ledger. Is not this strong co
roborative evidence OF the accuracy
the balances as stated I'm the individu