Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-06-30

rODOfntBn ny oLuer eNluNDCe J" WV
case. A number Of reputable witnesses
whose testimony has not been IN
peacheG, contru1ieted or disorenited IN
any manner, have testified thet the rep.
utatiun of tho defendant Tor trnth anu
yoracity in tho community 10 whicn ne
resides ia had. This testimony is pc
fore you for your confederation IN con
ncction with the other evidence IN the
case. Tho defendant has not produced
any witnesses to testify that his repu'
tation for truth and yeracity In the
roighhorhuod In which he resides 10
good. may add, generally, that you
should especially look Ia tho interest
any witness, who has tcstitied before
you in this cnse, has in its raHult
Where u witness has direct personal
interest 10 the result Of case tho temp
taton ia strong to color, perrert or
withhold the facts.
All OF the witnesses who have tsstl-
lied on behalf Of thu defendant, with tho
exception Of Jefferson Il. Ford and
Arley II. Magec, who was law student
OF Richard X. Kenncy at tho time to
winch his testimony relates, are now
under Indictment by the grand Jury for
this district for completely with Will
linn n, Boggs in the defalcation OF
Sl07, 600.
The court noxt revieweil, in detail,
tho testimony given by William N.
Boggs, continuing:
Fraud, heing essentially a matter OF
motive or intention, IL often deduoible
only from great variety OF circum'
stances no ono of which is absolutely he
cisive; but which in combination with
eBch othor may become almost irresiHti-
bio ~ to this true nature and character
Of tho transaction in controversy. And
10 cuses in which the existence OF fraud
ia in issue evidence of other actH and
| Coingg OF the defendant of kindred
character arc admissible in order to
| illustrate or establish hiH iutent or
motive in doing the particular act or
acts directly 10 question. single act
taken 10y itself may not he decisive
either way; hut when taken in connuo-
tion with others OF like character and
| nature the intent accompanying the
doing of the. particular act or acts
| charged as unlawful may be demon
strated almost with conclusive GER
taipty. II you arc satisfied shat the
Defendant from 1888 up to November
| Both. 1896, drew the various checks
above enumerated, including those i'm
mediately in question. upon the First
National Bank OF Dover for his own
uHes or purposes. in whole or in part,
when at tine time uf so drawing and
procuring the payment of such checks
out of the funds of the bank his ac-
count was either overdrawD or his bal
ances we're wholly insufficient to pay
such chocKs, it is for you 10 determine
whsther the intention Of the defendant
toward tue bank 10 drawing and pro-
curing the payment of such checks was
not continuing intention, one and the
sune, from the time he drew the first
of such checks until he draw tho last
nne, anu il so what that intention was.
1t has appeared in evidence that during
the period covered by these checks the
dciendant's deposit book was repeatedly
settled. The defendant having chosen
to be a witness ia his own behalf hat
the same right us other witnesses Il
testify. Yet he has not in any part Of
his testimony questioned the accurnc,
of tho account Of hiH credits as shown
by the settlement of his deposit bool
or the statement of such credits al
shown by the individual ledger, nor has
the Defendant testified that no knew N
believed at the time he drew any of thC
above enumerated checks upon thu
First National Bank Of Dover tina
there was money IL his credit in tn,
bank sufficient to meet such check o.
checks. Does or does not this circum
stance amount TO confederation b.
the defendant OF the testimony OF Will
liam n. Boggs upon material point IL
the case2 This 10 for your determine
ton as intelligent and conscientiou
!. men. The defendant testified 10 tn
affect that he, the defendant, iirs
learned that William N. Boges was
defaulter after tina latter had takel
! his flight, and the books Of the hanl
, had heeu examined but he also testi
fed to the effect that his check date
May 18th. 1896, for $3.50, in favor Of L
) Is. Cuthbert Il Co., drawn on the FRS
National Bank Of Dover for the puI
chase Of a certain amount OF the stoc
OF tho BAY Stnte Gas Co., and whiG
s according to the testimony, was paid b
that bank on May 18th, 1896, "cam
Y back to Dover on the 18th or 10Th {
, May. Mr.. Boggs came over to in
@ Office one afternoon and he aays. Clarl
t you havu another Cuthbert check in {
. $3.50. says. Will. cannot pay it.
a have been disappointed in collectin
n some money, 50 protest the check an
/ return it, The defendant furthe
testified to the effect that the sum
@ 81, 500, included in the bond for 81. on
I executed by him April 9Th, 1897, reJ
h resented money borrowed by the dc
n fendunt from William n Boggs "to us
y in various ways; pay bills;" that
was money borrowed from William \
/ N, hp iRI at.f 10
u defendant TO different peuplo; that bt
; the defendant, would sometimes pa
/, this indebtedDess by giving them
y check on the First National Bank {
/ Dover; that he, the defendant, psvt
: gave check on amy other bank; this
D William n. Boggs Ind said to him, th
defendant, time and time again when
: would ask him for loan OF a ema
, amount, s25. | haven't got the money
d II you will give me a check / will TAX
t care of it for you:'" and that he, Ii
o defendant, knew that William N. Bogs
0 was Their teller in tho First Nations
r Bank of Dover. Is this or not furtht
n corroboration by the defendant of til
il testimony OF William N. Boggs upo
+ one Of the vital points In this case?
II The Testimony in this case ia yoluu
0 inous and relates to many matters
!. varying Importance. You should o.
+ deavor to distinguish between such CIV
= Gence as relates to matters of mint
o import anu the evidence which boaI
}. moro diroctly upon the controlling fac
u in the Gaze. IL 10 admitted tht
II william n. Boggs defaulted to tho Fir
n National Bank Of Dover in the sum
) Sl07, 600. 1t has been put IN ey
Y danch LY the nafendant that WI