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

to IN, fidelity and regularity OF william
N. Bokgs as teller, although IL appears
from tie defendants testimony that
he mas lereonally known william N.
lioggH for a good many years ana hal
gamhled wit, him. William N. Boggs,
for sons twop three years.
Testimony ha, besn adduced az to
alleged contradictions Of William N.
l}oggs and also Of lhe defendant as well
as Of certain Of tho other witnesses
tho case. This testimony has been
recently delivered ~ 20 he fresh
your recollection, and do not fen
called upon in view of that circum,t
stance to say mora than few words on
that subject. You will recall that
William N. Bopgs testified as to the
character of the indebtedness repro
sented by tho 81, 600 bond executed hye
the defendant April 9th. 1897. ToH
contradict him in this particular the
defendant called Richard Il. Keuney and
Arlay Is. Magee and also rendered him
self as witness, who testified as 10
alleged statements by William N. Boggs1
contradictory OF his testimony. Richard
X. Kenney, as above stated, ia unde1l
indictment for alleged completely 10 tho
defalcation OF william N. BoRgs, nnd9
Arley Il. Magee, ut tho time to whic r.
hiR testimony relates, was u law AtudenU
Of Richard X. Kenney. Ii appeared
the trial of the case that notice waiI
served by the diairict attorney upon tho
d rendant's attorney to produce al A
documentary evidence showing tho
character of the indebtedness repre-
sented hy the bond for 1000. SUCH
documentary evidence, IL any existed A
,nk ,,raIrnaH Won mt hau
ever. to draw any inference adverse I'll
the defendant from the non -prnd uctio1
of such documentary evidence, il ants
exiuted, pursuant to the call made uporS
| his attorney. But when the ivfendHn <
took the stand as witness he did no
in any portion Of his testimony stat%
| that such documentary evidence, il am
existed, had been lost or destroyed %
was not within mis- power to PRODUCED
William N. BOggs had testified posi-
lively to the effect that on April 9th,
| 1897, prior to the execution Of tho
81, 900 bond, he had gone over with the
defendant in tho defendants office all
tho items Of indebtedness included in
that hOnd that all of the indebted :
ness included IN the bond was made up
of alleged fraudulent checks of the
| Defendant upon this Firat National
ljHnk Of Dover mot including the tw0
checks of tho d efendant for $3.50 bear.
ing date respectively on May Sth. 1896,
| and MAY 18th, 1896; that the aggregate,
amount of the alleged fraudulent checks
represented in the bond was betweeul
SO, 700 anu 81, 500 and that the balance
OF tho a., QUO was represented by inter
est to TINT date agreed upon betweep
tho defendant and William N. BoRge
and that all of the fraudulent check I
covered by that bond, together witt.
letters and kilograms relating theret
we're then and there delivered bN
William N. Boggs To the defendant.
Under those circumstances has Il
has not William n. Boggs been succesa
fully contradicted 10 this particular
There are other questions Of contradict
ton in tho evidence which you will
doubtless clearly recall without AMI
suggestion from the court. 1t ia propei'
that | should add that your verdict ini
this case should not be controlled byI
contradictions 10 minor points, should
any such exist, provided, the evidenoel
taken rs whole, after making all due
allowance for any such contradictions,
leads you to fixed conclusion OF the
guilt Of the defendant. II the evidence
30 taken shall not satisfy you beyond d
reasonable doubt, as already defined,
that the defendant is guilty. he should
he acquitted. If, however. the avi
deuce dues so satisfy you beyond 4
reasonable doubt your verdict SHOULD
he guilty.
At the conclusion of the charge, a
! o'clock, the jury retired for consul
tatiun.
1HE RETURNS VERDICT.
The Federal Court jury in the case
OF Thomas S. Clark returned verdict
at 4. 40 o'clock Friday afternoon, find
ing Clark guilty under five counts Of
the indictment. The verdict Heemed 1
shock tu the prisoner and his COUNSEL
John Biggs, and thu prisoner dropped
his face upon bis hand at it's ANNOUNCED
: ment. The jury had retired about
! o'clock, aud shortly afterwards tool
} dinner In the room Tho consideratinI
, OF the case resulted in an agreemenl
I without difficulty upon verdict o.
I guilty 40 to two checks in the 2lsi
count ami guilty under the 25th, 36th.
I ADD and 4ith counts. The two chez E
in tue 2lst count were for SO each, Il
/ dated February 18th, 1896, and 4
other, November Both. 1896, and CAN1I
r was charged with aiding and abe
l William N. Boggs to defrau1 the In
National Bank of Dover 10y abstractfS|
money, funds and credits of the ban
for those amounts; numerous othed
. checks had been specified in the count
t but the Jury rejected the others. 1hd
25th count charges Clark with aiciDa
D and abetting Boggs TO defraud tha
, bank in tho abstraction of money! r
! the $3.50 check Of May 10th, 1896, n
a the 36th count charges him with coz
T nectlon with the misappication of 81
: for the check of May llth, 1896. 9Sf
t 4Sd and 44th counts allege conspiraCf
3 between Clark and Bnggs to abstrac
the two checks last mentioned.
The verdict was announced by Fore
J man William L. Porter and was hear
by only small number OF parsons out
side of the court officials and those pat
: ticularly interested. At the request .
Mr.. Biggs, the jury was polled. Eaef
man assented to the verdict unit
. Charles Q. Kurtz was reachatl, and hf
asked whether the question they weFt
replying to was ono of guilty as indicte
or guilty as to certain counts. 1t belnt
[ explained that it referred 10 the certai
five counts all the jurors aRsanted.
= Mr.. Biggs was allowed four days 4
r which To present reasons for nef
y trial. The jurors were discharged, a
= the request of District A ttorney VandsI
t grift, until Tuesday. July 9th, thi
t date when Senator Richard r. KenI
| ney's trial ia to t'egin. v.sse
Judge Bradford remanded Clark n
| NnA, 81 a.