Evening journal., 1898-06-20

twenty-third, twenty-fourth andl
twenty-hfth counts are not good in
law, IN that they fail to allege that the
said defendant aided and abetted the
said Boggs, as set forth in said counts,
with knowledge on the part Of the said
defendant that the said Boggs was, at
the time Of the aiding and abetting. as
alleged in said counts, the teller OF the
s9id National Banking Association.
u. That the said second, third,
fourth, fifth, sixth, nineteenth, twenty
first, twenty-third twenty-fourth and
twenty-ffth counts are insufficient in
law, in that they fail to allege that
the acts done by the said William N.
Boggs, as set forth in the said counts,
, in which acts it is further set forth
that the said defendant aided and
abetted him, the said William N. Boggs,
were done by the said William n
{ Boggs. as teller, or by virtue Of his
Office as teller of the said National
Banking Association.
13. That the said first, second,
third counts do not sufficiently set
forth any aiding and abetting Of an
embezzlement within the puryiew and
intent Of section 5000 of the Revised
1 Statutes Of the United States.
y IA. That the said thiru count does
I not, within the purview and intent OF
a section 52O9 of the Revised Statutes OF
the United States, set out any en-
/, bezzlement by the said Boggs, with any
/. intent that the said embezzlement
= should be for his own use, but states
/, that the said embezzlement by the said
/. Boggs was made for the use and bene-
1, fit of the said Kenney.
d IS. That the said sixth, thirteenth
y and sixteenth counts are bad in law,
'e inasmuch as material allegations OF
st said counts are repugnant and contra
dlctory.
a, 16. That the said sixth, thirteenth
b, and sixteenth counts are insufficient In
r law for uncertainty, in that they allege
b. that the said sums of money in said
h, counts mentioned were secured by the
d. aid of the said defendant, by hi.
d checks drawn to the order OF one Sam
ne uel F. Shaw, sheriff, and that sane
Mt checks upon endorsement and pre-
r sentatlon by the said Samuel Il. Shaw
Sc Sheriff, were duly paid by the SAT-
ds Boggs to the said Samuel l.. Shaw
sheriff, with moneys, rights or credit
d, taken from the said National Bankin'
h, Association, while in other parts q
r- said counts, it is alleged that tn
n. moneys. rights and credits taken b
n, said Boggs were so taken by him !
ID, payment of the obligation Of him, tn
j d said Boggs, to E. B. Cuthbert & Co.
he II. That the seventh count is ba
he in law, for duplicity and repugnanS
bic in that in one part Of said count Il
all said defendant is charged with aidin
tai and abetting said Boggs to unlawful
u and walfully abstract a large amour
Of money, where as in another part
I'd, said count it is charged and allegt
tn, that the said defendant aided an
ir- abetted the said Boggs to unlawful
tn, wilfully and fraudulently misapply u
tn, said money.
nd IS. That the said seventh count
n d not good in law, for that it is n
the therein alleged that the act done wi
It done with a wilful, unlawful al
ent fraudulent intent, according to d
one description OF the offense.
10. That the said nineteenth al
Ird. twenty-second counts are not good
nth, law, in that they do not allege that q
lir- said defendant either injured or d
lth, frauded" or intended to "injure or d
lth, fraud" the said National Banking
md, sociation.
n d 20. That the said nineteenth cou
ate does not sufficiently charge any VI
not lation of section 52O9 of the Revis
lion Statutes OF the United States in ii
is does not aHege that the defenda
ird, had any knowledge Of the charging
hth, his, the defendants, checks specified
hir- said count, upon the books of the 81
hth' National Banking Association, Whl
nth, said charging, as alleged, constitut
ond, the unlawful and fraudulent misapT
n d cation of the moneys, funds and cr'
orth its Of the said National Banking !
'eci- sociation.
lner 21. That the said nineteenth col
ion does not sufficiently allege any c.
version Of the moneys, funds or cred
lird, Of the said National Banking Assoc
hth, tion to the use or benefit of the S
.hir- defendant, or any losses occasioned
NTH, said National Banking ASSOCIATE
NTH, through any act or intent Of the s
ond, defendant.
4 d %. That the said nineteenth CO..
orth is not sufficient in law, in that
Ition dates when said checks were char
de- to the account of the said defends
n of -. --.olo;ead In caid count are va