The sun., 1898-06-25


an acqnittal. The commission of II
criminal offense can be proved by cir
cumstantial evidence as well as by direc-
EVIDENCE, provided the circumstances
proved, together with reasonable infer
ence drawn from them, are such as to
leave no reasonable doubt in the minds
OF the jury that the defendant is guilty.
You are to take into consideration all
the evidence in this case, both direct and
circumstantal, together with all reason
able inferences to be drawn from that
evidence in arriving at conclusion. A
reasonable doubt is a doubt based on
reason and which is reasonable in view
of all the evidence. 1t is not whim-
sical arbitray or purely speculative
doubt; nor a mere conjecture or guess.
| If, after an impartial comparison and
consideration of all the evidence you can
candidIy say that you are not satisfied
with the defendants guilt, you haye a
reasonable doubt; but if, after such i'm.
partial comparison and consideration Of
all the evidence, you can truthfully say
that you have a settled and fixed con-.
viction of the defendants guilt such as
you would be willing to act upon in the
more weighty and important matters re-
ating to your own affairs, you have no
reasonable doubt, and in that case should
find verdict of guilt. Absolute GER
tainty is not required for such verdict.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as
above defined, is sufficient.
While the court brings to your attention
some OF che evidence on both sides, you
| 1kx hat Nnf I1, Itn
least to be controlled by anything which
has been or shall be stated by the court
in relation to the evidence in this case.
While it is my duty to call your atten-
ton to such portions of the evidence as
in the judgment of the court may aid
you in arriving at a just verdict, you are
to give to the testimony only such
weight and effect as you consider it en-
titled to.
There is uncOntradicted evidence and
it 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 defaulter to the amount of
$lO7, 600, and that that sum represented
moneys of The First National Bank of
Dover which lie had, while receiving and
paying teller Of that bank, unlawfnlly
elmbezzled, abstracted and misapplied,
in violationipf section 5000 the Revised
Statutes Of the United States. 1t also ap-
pears from uncontradicted testimony in
the case that within few days after the
flight of William N. Boggs his defalca-
tion was discoyerel by the officers of the
bank, and, upon investigation, ascer-
tanned to amount t the above mentioned
sum. Irving d. B 'ggs, who was book
keeper of the bank, testified to the effect
that its individual ledger contained en-
tries showing the balance due from time
10 Time to the deftn lant'as one of its de-
positors and also the overdrafts by the
defendant from time to time as deposi-
tor. And furtl er that he, Irving ID.
Boggs, had no knowledge OF the alleged
fraudulent cl ecks drawn by the defend.
ant upon the bank. This testimony
covers period extending from the last
day OF September, 1893, until after the
flight of William N. Boggs. Irving d.
| oggs further testified that, whenever he
received deposit from any OF the de-
posters of the bank, he did contempo-
rant ously and truly enter in his own
handwriting the amount thereof in the
individual ledger to the credit of the de-
poSior, and further that when William
\. Bngss, as teller, reported to HIM, lrv.
ing D. Boggs, the amount of any deposit
which lie, William N. Boggs, had re-
ceived, he, Irving d. Boggs, would in
like amer enter the amount thereof in
ii e individual le lger to TIE credit of the
Eerson so re .,orel by W.N. Boggs to have
made such deposi, and further, that the
customary course was for him, Irving D..
Boggs, to correctly make entries in the
individual ledger directly from an in
spection by him of the deposit slips
William n. Bnggs testified to the effect
that whenever any deposit was made by
or on account Of the defendant he either
correctly reported that amount to Irving
b. Boggs, the bookkeeper, for entry in
the individual ledger to the credit OF the
defendant or, in case Of the absence OF
Irving ID. Boggs, truly and accurately
made such entrv in the individual ledger
himself: and further that with the the
exception OF two deposits such entries
were made in The individual ledger con-
temperance, sly with the deposits. The
two deposits which were not entered in
the individual ledger contemporaneously
with their receipt were the proceeds of u
note of GEORGE Carbart for SlO4 and a
savings fund money order for $lOO given
by Rosa Henry, which were entered in
the individual ledger to the credit OF the
defendant July 81, 1896, and the pro-
ceeds OF two notes for $3.50 each given
respectively by Frederick A. Harbelt and
Paul Hammell which were entered in
the individual ledger to the credit OF the
defendant August IA. 1896 Yon will
doubtless recall tie testimony disclosing
llle circumstances and the purpose for
which these deposits OF july 81, 1896,
AMI August II, lS9H. were made. and
the reasons as testified tu by William
y. Bogg- why these entries could not be-
sooner made. 1t appears from the tesli-
mony ni William n. Boggs and Irving D..
Boggs that, not taking into consideration
the alleged fraudulent checks drawn by
the defendant upon the bank, the entries
in the individual ledger relating to the
defendants account were so carried on
as to accurately show, with the exception
OF the two deposits just mentioned, the
true condition of his account aS a de-
positO' at all times within the period
above mentioned. These entries are be.
fore you, not as independent evidence Of
themselves, but as proper for your con;
sideration in connection with the t-sti-
mony OF William N. Boggs and Irving D.
Boggs, as tending, IN connection with
that testimony, and without taking into