The sun. (Wilmington, Del.) 1897-19??, 1898-05-15
JUDGE DELIVERS
- Charge 70 JURY
Continued From Page One.

pears from the testimony OF William n.
Boggs and Irving D. Boggs that the en-
tries in the individual ledger relating to
the defendants account were SO carried
on as to accurately show the condition
of his account as depositor at all times
within the period above mentioned.
Those entries are before you, not as in
dependent evidence OF themselves, but
as proper for your consideration in con-
nection with the testimony of William n.
Boggs and Irving D. Boggs, as tending,
in connection with that testimony, to
show the amounts of the balances,
whether due from the defendant to TIE
bank or from the bank to the defendant.
The deposit book OF the defendant was
produced by him pursuant to due notice
and is in evidence. T. Edward Ross,
the expert accountant, testified that he
found, after investigation, that the bal
ances in the deposit book since April,
1896, correspond exactly with tile bal
ances in the defences's account in the in
dividual ledger and further that he did
not find in the defendants deposit book
any deposit which had not been entered
in the individual ledger You should
bear in mind that in view of the fact that
the bank book came from the defendant s
possession, it is reasonable to conclude
that had it not contained entries of
all deposits made by him he would
have been aware Of that fact. The de-
PENDANT, although witness in the CASE
has not questioned either the accuracy
of the entries in his own deposit book or
of the entries of balances as shown in
his account in the individual ledger. Is
not this strong corroborative evidence OF
the accuracy of the balances as stated in
the individual ledger? 1t is for you as
reasonable men to determine whether,
under these circumstances, the true bal
ances in the defendants account with
the bank are not disclosed in that ledger.
The balances in the defendants account
as shown by the individual ledger, are as
follows: A balance of $99.7S continued
unchanged from May :, 1896, inclusive,
from May H. 1896, to May II, 1896, in
elusive; the balance on May u, 1896, was
$l967S; on May 10, 1896, the sum OF
$20l. 80 was withdrawn, leaving an over
draft On that day of S4.72. This over
draft continued unchanged from May IA,
1896, to June 10, 1896, inclusive. On
June II, 1896, there was balance to the
credit Of the defendant of $l92Ol. On
the next following day $2Ol. 40 was with
drawn, leaving an Ovardraft on that day
of 1919. This overdraft was increased
by check for 81 "a on June IS, 1896, to
Sl073. On June Is, 1896, there was a
deposit OF Sll, leaving as the defendant $
balance on that day PIC. This balance
of &c. continued unchanged until Sep
TENDER %, 1896. On September "a, 1896,
there was deposit of Sl96.73, and a
withdrawal Of 5000, leaving an overdraft
on that day of So. This overdrait of So
continued unchanged until October ! +,
| 1896, inclusive. On October 2, 1896,
there was deposit Of $500, and on the
same day withdrawal of $50,
leaving, after allowing for the overdraft
OF s., Il balance due the defendant OF
$3l7, which balance continued I'm.
changed until October ), 1896. On that
day here was deposit of $3}3, and a
withdrawal of $3.50, leaving no balance
either way. From this date no balance
appears either way until December 10,
! lp'o, VII NlllCll udN tilcic was ucpoSlt
OF $500, which remained to his credit
until the next day, when the whole
amount was withdrawn, leaving NJ
I balance either way. From the latter
date no balance appeacs either way until
December "A, 1896 when deposits were
made, amounting to 5000, and on the
same day the amount OF both deposits
was withdrawn, leaving no balance
either way. From this date no balance
appears either way until April y, 1897,
when deposit of $50 was made, and
Oh the same day that amount was with
drawn, leaving no balance either way.
From this date no balance appears either
way until May IS, 1897, which was
about one month after the payment of a
check made by the defendant in favor OF
=. B. Cnthbert 4 Co., on The First
National Bank of Dover, dated April II,
1897. 1t thus appears from the indi-
vidual ledger together with the testi-
nIony accompanying it, and from the
defendants bank book, that during the
period from May I, 1896, to May Is,
] 1897, the defendants account was over
drawn several times: that from June -,
1896, until September -, 1896, period
/ OF over three months, the balance in
favor Of the defendant was only -
cents; and that from October ), 1896, tC
! May IS, 1897, there was practically nc
balance due from the bank to the de
PENDANT. 1t is true that on December
! 10, 1896, the defendant appears tc
have deposited $500, but that sun
was withdrawn on the next day
that ON December a, 1896, he dc
posted 5000 which was withdrawn Oh
tine same day; and that on April y, 1897,
he deposited $50, which sum was with.
drawn on t!!> same day. From tho
evidence on the part of the government
which the defendant has made no at
tempt to refute, it appears from May I,
1896, to April II. 1897, large number
OF checks set forth ia the various counts
of the in lictnent were drawn by the
defendant on The First National Bank
OF Dover in favor of i. B. Cuthbert 4
Company, and were paid ont Of the
funds of that bank. These checks, as
you will remember, amount in the ag-
gregatc to some so 900 or SD, 600 and
were drawn for sums ranging from $3.50
to 5000. During the period from June
Is, 1896, to September p, 1896, when
the defendant had a balance Of only y
cents tofhia credit, checks amounting to
about 81 600 were drawn on that bank
by the defendant in favor of i. Il. Cuth-
bert u Company and paid out of its
| funds. During the period from October