The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1898-06-21
CLARK'S CASE 4 Z.
INTERESTING.
Lawyers Are Treated to
.. an Interesting Tilt Be-
tween Biggs and -
Vandergrift.

| tne Clurk Urlal IN L00 Uns.cu SCaUeb SOurt
yesterday afternoon. The evidence on the
| part of the defence was in contradiction OF
William N. Boggs. The witnesses were Sen
ntor Kenney, Arley p. Mapee, Charles H
Butler and William f.. Cotter. District At
torney Vnndegrift tried to break down Sen
ator kenney but was unable to shake him
Two Of the witnesses were allowed to go
off the stand without cross-exalninatior.
One of the jurors Is reported to have said,
We'll, did not think Vandegrift would
| give up his case so soon. He never asked
a wcrd Of Two witnesses, showing to the
jury thereby that Boggs was fatty con
tradicted."
At the afternoon session of the court the
cross-examination of Senator Kenney was
resumed by District Attorney NnDdegrifG.
MIR. Vandegrift-" "Mr Kenney, you have
stated here in your direct examination that
at the time that Thomas s Clark signed
this bond he said that part of it was for
gambling debit" 'Yes:'
(which part OF that bond did he state
was for gambling debt?' 40 the be st
of my recollection he made no divsion."
':AIl of 1t was not for "a gambling debt:"
"To the best of my recollection it was
not"
Il will ask you whether or rot there
wero certain parts of this indebted ness
| which you know of prior to 1852 'To
| what do you refer?'
TO the portion represented by checks9"
mot to my knowledge"
"Have you not so stated?" II think
not"
:Did you not state before the grand jury
In the Clark case that n part Of the in
| debtedness to William N. Boggs was
known TO You, and did you not state that
| William N. Boggs spoke to you'-
Mr.. Biggs objected on the ground that
itwond ba against public policy to intro
duce testimony which was given before
| the grand jury. Such testimony was in
tended for that body and for no one else,
and the decision of the court would sus-
tain such view of the subject
Mr.. Vandegrift held that he had right
to show that tho witness did have n prior
knowledge to the indebtedness that exist
ed than lie had started and that he had
right to refresh his recollection on that
point by asking concerning what he had
testified to before the grand jury.
Judge Brddford--'1 under. taDd that the
wtnessin in his direct examination testified
to certain conversations which passed be-
tween William N. Boegs and the defendant
on April q, 1897 Thewitpess also stated
that the first he knew of any indebtedness
between William N Boggs and the defend-
ant was year or more prior to that time.
Now you have perfect right to show, II
you can by witness, that ho became aware
of the indebtedness of the defendant to
William N Boggs at an earlier date. Is that
: what you propose to do?"
Mr.. Vandegrift said that WIS what he
proposed :OdO
Senator Kenney--'I will answer that.
Such n statement was made by me, but
the checks referred to were those repre-
sentipg what understood to bo gambling
debts. never know that Mr.. Boggs al.
lowed Mr.. Clark to overdraw his accounts
at the hank
You s ate hat you never knew that?'
"Po itvc!y."
"Did you not there state that you knew
before that date. by The confession of Will
liam n. Boggs, that he was defauter at
the bank"
Mr., Bigss objected to this question and
it was Withdrawn.
Mr.. Vandc.rift- "Mr Kenney, The con-
vorsation which YOU say did not take place
on any Sunday night in 1885, when did it
take placer"
MIR Biugs objected anil held that the dis.
,rlct attorney must conflne his questions
to matters concerning Thomas 8. Clark.
Thele was considerable discussion over
the matter and Judge Bradford decided
that the question might be asked. In the
meantime Senator kenney remarked: II
will answer that question. DO you mean
when did krow of the defalcation?"
Yes" replied Mr.. Vandegrift. Sena-
tor kenncy: Thought you referred to the
Indebtedness of Thomas S. Clark"
Il will put this qnes ion, How much
longer thrn year prior 10 1857, in April
of that year, did you learn of tho indebt-
cdnesS of homas $. Clark to William N.
Boggs:" Sometime in 1896"
in what season of that year," II think
1t was in the winter. 1t was while the
Legislature was in session or possibly a
little before"
WAS there at hat time placed in your
hands claims Of William N. Boggs against
Thomas s. Clarke Never in substance.
Did he not speak toyou about it?' "He
spoke to mo about claims and asked mo to
get q tond for them"
why did you not collect thcm9"
CLARK refused to give IA bond up to the
time that it was given
was there any payments made up to
1851 on the claim held by you?' NO"
"Doyou know of any payments being
madc?" "Not through mo ~
Did Clark ever tell you that there was?'
mo, he always refused to make payment
or to give II bond"
"Did he not toll you Of n payment made
in July?' Not tony knowledge"
"Did you n ean to your knowledge or
Boggs with laving been charged with anv
commission. Ii anything had been col
lcctcd for him ho would have been charged
The usual fee for collection"
Mr.. Nandegriit asked u question in ref.
crenco to II statement made by Boggs but
the defense objected, Mr.. Biggs h. ID that
such question could not DO asked in
Cross-cxamnation.
Judge Bradford: "The district attor.
ney hu. perfect right to locate tho timo
when the witness first b came aware Of
the Indebtedness of this defendant iOWm,
n. Eoggs, but under the rules of tross-cx-
amina ion applied by the court to tho dc.
fen @"
Mr.. Bggs: Most strictly"
Court: But properly, must also apply
here"
Mr.. Vandegrlft then asked another qucs-
ton about II payment OH account, but the
defense objected and the court sustained
tho objection. After some argument the
question was ut in u different shape and
Mr. Nandegrilt asked:
'Mr. kcnnsy, did not Thomas S. G ark
tel you in july 1895, that he had paid to
William n. Boggs $3.50 on account, which
knew nothing of anything being raid on
account or of any claim until tho bend was
signed. The claim was never in our
bands. Thcre might have been paid 500
Or $500, COO on the account for all that
know. All that | know is that when the
bond was made out they agreed upon
500 as the amount"
Did William N. Boggs tell what tho
fund consisted OFF" NO"
Mr.. NnIucgrltt banded copy of the
Baltimore sun to Senator Kcnney and
said:
Look at that purported Interview"
MIR. Biggs objected, and Judge Bradford
said hat the paper waJ not evidence.
Mr.. Nandegrift held that he had right
to show certain statemcnls made herein.
The paper was ruled ont aud then Mr..
VantegrifG asked the name OF the reporter
Of the paper with whom Senator Kenney
had the interview, and again MIR Biggs
objected. This was ruled out ami several
other questions Of like nature were ask
cd, all OF which were ruled out. Senator
Konney said that he was willing to an.
swer the question, but Nr. Biggs still OBJ
jec' ed, MIR. Nandegrilt asked If the scna- |
tor knew Thomas Ewell of he Baltimore |
Sun, and he replied that lie did. Ho then |
asked agnn concerning tho interview, but |
the ques OF was III cd out.
Mr.. Nandcgr!it: Did you succeed in |
collecting any part of the S40Ju OH the |
bond?' Not a dollar"
"Or Of the $3.50 ON tho ether bondt'
mot u cent"
Arley b. Magee deposcd to the conversa-