Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-07-28

relation to the other eight Cuthbert
checks, which were for. the bsnetit Of
the Defendant, he explained, the evil
deuce shows that they were paid out of
the funds of the bank and they were
withheld for various periods, aggre-
eating about 32 days.
IF you should behave from the
evidence" he explained, that with
respect TO the checks for the ,ise of
Boggs that the defendant believed
Boggs was paying them out OF his own
resources, and not out OF the funds OF
the bank, you cannot convict. You
must be satisfied. in order to lind
verdict of guilty that the defendant
had knowledge of the infant OF Boggs
TO miaapply the funds of the hank and
that he did some net to aid ana abet
Boggs to misapply the funds OF the
bank.
"Much has been said On the subject
Of overdrafts, as to whether they are
criminal. A, man may make an over
draft and not commit a criminal act.
A bank may desire to accommodate.
customer, hut no map who has not
balance in bank or a sufficient balance
can make an overdraft without the
knowledge and consent OF the proper
officials.
"If the defendant had good reason TO
believe that any of the checks were to
be paid out of funds in the bank which
were nut his then be had criminal
Knowledge. If he at the time, having
| such knowledge, gave the checks with.
out perInissi Of the proper officials,
| the fact that he made up the overdrafts
subsequently, does not absolve him from
guilt.
IAN intent to injure Ur defraud a
national bank does not necessarily in
volve malice toward the bank. The
law presumes that every sane person,
who has reached the proper age con-
templates the consequences of his own
acts. 1t is immaterial whether the
money fraudulently taken from the
bank for the use hsnefit and advantage
of Boggs or the defendant were for
their use solely or for the use Of them
aelves with Others. =
The Judge called attention to the fact
that William N. BoRgs had testified as
an accomplice, and said it ia usual for
the cour, to advise the jury not to con
rict on the evidence Of an accomplice
| il it is not corroboratiye in some ma
terial parts by other evidence, and
added that it would be far from the
duty nf the Jurors to he carried away
by any heated language or abuse. The
evidence of William N. Boggs should be
carefully considered.
Referring to the defendants testi-
mony the judge alluded 10 his deep per.
sonal interest and should consider as tt
how far be had been corroborated,
where a person has such a dsep per
sonal interest there is strong tempta
tion to color or withhold the fncts.
The Judge reviewed the evidence o
Senator Kenney aud Boggs relativs t
the latter informing the former OF hi
shortage at the bank and also relative
to BOggs' subsequent actions. Afte
presenting the more material portion
OF the defeEdant'a testimony, the judg
said, the question was as to whether i
was probable or improbable. The de
PENDANT admits that Boggs consulted
him with respect to the defalcation
! hut states positively that the consulta
tion took place in November, 1881
while Boggs said it took place in 1888
This discrepancy, be held, might no
be material. He also referred to tn
interview in the Baltimore Sun ol
, June 10th Of this year, in which tn
, defendant is represented as having SAL
, the conference took place either 10 ls9
, or 1884; be did not know which.
, The defendant, the judge said, ha
1 not testified that the overdraftH q
3 which ne had been notified were othe
/ than those which appeared in red inl
on the books.
! William N. Bogge, said the judge
4 \ HaI hn laf n
J rangement, whereby his checks were
Z be paid whether be had sufficient fund
r there or moi, whereas the defendant ha
( testified that he believed that Williai
8 N. Boggs han ample funds of his owr
. While the defendant has availed him
self OF the right to testify, he has no
A testified, nor neither has any oths
4 witness. that the defendant made IN
q curry of the officials OF the bank cor
!. corning the fidelity and regularity {
4 William N. Bogga. This verdict IN thl
: case should not be influenced by cor
tradietion on minor points, but ID
r evidence should be taken as who
: and carefully considered.
The court informed the jurors thu
a they were not to be controlled by an
4 statements of the court; that they wei
h 4 the solo judges in the matter. Th
Il verdict should represent the opinion I
v each juror, after careful consideration
"a No juror should give verdict again
J. the dictates of hiH conscience. graz
: public duty rests upon the jurors, an
70 they should not be influenced by ar
40 public clamor or sentiment.
A. In conclusion the judges said: :"
unon all of the evidence in the case yc
"a are not satisfied, beyond a reasonab
! doubt, of the quit Of tho defendant {
"a one or more of the counts of the Indie
J. menf remaining open for your consit
Grafton, you should acquit him hut
n upon all the evidence in the case yc
are satisfied, beyond a reasonable doub
n that the defendant is guilty in mann
N and form aa he stands inflicted on son
"A one or moro OF thuse counts, you shon
4 return a verdict Of guilty. III you fir
4 a verdict of guilty il may be gener
a. verdict of guilty or verdict OF guilt
=. as to all or any of surh counts now r
ID naming in the indictment, as the ev
dence shall warrant"
10 Immediately after the judge hI
n finished speaking Mr.. Bird, of cuuns
=. for the dsfence, informed the cou
ii that be desired to note an exception
ia the charge. The jury retired at 12. 4
So far as the present term of Unit
is States Circuit Court for the Distri
10 OF Delaware is concerned, the trial
n I.Unitsd States Senator Richard
BIT Ksnney, charged with aiding and abe
ID ting William N. Boggs In the wifi
misapplication of muney from the Fir
th National Bank of Dover, came to
L H. -.