The sun., 1898-06-23
ARGUMENT IN PROGRESS
Continued From Page One.

written bv him on May 10Th, 1896, to
Thomas S. Clark. 1t went in evidence.
Had that letter anything to do with
the payment of the two $3.50 checks
dated MAY Sth and 13th?' Mr.. Nande-
griit asked.
Before answering Mr.. Page read the
letter, which was an acknowledgment OF
the receipt of draft and a notification
that Clark's account was not strong
enough to pay it.
Witness said Clark evidently thought
he had enough there to pay the amount
of the draft, but could not state W ether
it was in relation to either of tie checks.
+. d. Ross, expert accountant, was
called and said the checks OF f. b.
Cuthbert 4 Co. had all gone through the
Farmers Bank, although the FIRST
National Bank of Dover had IA corre-
spondents.
The government closed with this wit
ness.
Mr.. Biggs offered in evidence the tele-
gram and announced that the defence
had closed. The telegram was admitted
by the court and Mr. Vandegrift pre-
sented his prayers to the court.
Mr.. Bggs objected to that portion
/ holding it to be violation of the law if
the defendant when he gave the checks
dat ed May Sth and 18th. 1896, and Feb
ruarv 18th and November 3Oth, 1896,
had not sufficient balance to meet
them. He also objected to the feature
saying that for conviction it is not neces-
sary to prove the exact amount charged
in the indictment.
AFTERNOON PROCEEDINGS.
When court reconvened in the after
noon, Mr.. Bggs continued the presenta-
ton of his prayers and in conclusion,
thought that the jury should exercise
grave caution regarding the testimony of
witnesses and especially that OF William
n. Boggs, who i'll hopes OF a reward or
immunity from severe punishment and
a possible pardon, might stretch point
in the giving of such testimony. Unless
the testimony of this witness was cor
roborated, he admonished the jury to
pay no attention to it whatever.
Mr.. Vandegrift consumed very little
time in answering the prayers presented
by Mr.. Biggs and inside OF five minutes
was making his opening address to the
jury.
In.introducing his argument, he said
that the case had taken longer than they
or himself had thought, but this was
necessary from the fact that he had felt
no compunction in using all his efforts to
properly conduct the case and this COM
relled him to forge the chain of guilt
around the defendant, link by link.
"Iou cannot convict on any count in
the Indictment against the defendant
three years prior to April s, 1885, but if
you find any counts between April $,
1895, and April s. 1898, against Clark
then you can convict if you so so de-
eide" said the district attorney.
During the remainder OF his argument,
which was interrupted by adjournment,
Mr.. Nandegrift said:
II will now say that as far as am
concerned | am willing to leave the
record of William \. Boggs' testimony
in this court and in this case stand by
itself, as against that Of the defendant or
the defendants witnesses.
"Whv do | say this? | will tell you.
| am not taking the testimony OF William
\. Boggs by itself, for every line Of testi
mpnv given in this case bv him | have
succeeded in corroboratng by imnortant
Witnesses, for the reason that would
not attempt to have the jury convict
this man ON the uMcorubOratIve tcsti-
mony Of William \. EoggS.
Il tell you, gentlemen OF the jury that
the officials of other banks did not will
linglv come here as witnesses, nor
neither did they come here on the first
and second call, but put in an appear
anCe after the United States Government
had compelled them to appear in this
case and testify"
II will now call yonr special attention
to tia" two $3.50 checks signed by Clark,
made payable to +. i. Cuthbert x Co.,
dated May II and May -, 1896, and also
to the two $50 checks, when this defend
ant did not have enlIgh money i'll bank
to cover the amount called for in either
OF the four checks designated.
"What is the testimony Of the defense
on the two $3.50 checks? That Clark
gave a draft to +. B. Cuthbert 4 Co., and
the reason that firm did not recognize
the same was owing to the condition Of
his account wit thenn
Suppose he did give draft to f. B.
Cutubcr x Co., that does not alter ;he
case He had already drawn a check
tur 500 on May $, 1895. Another on
May Is for Il similar amount and another
on May ii, 1896. tell You, gentlemen
OF the jurv, if the defendant secured the
money for one OF these checks would
demand conviction at your hands and
you would have 80 give it.
"AIthongh the statute Of limitation
had almost expired on these checks, and
it would only nave required a month
more II have enabled this defendant to
have laughed and snapped his fingers at
justice, by the frauds he had pcrpctrated,
| say to YOU gentlemen Of the jury if
only one check for S25 had remained on
which ! could have tried Thomas $.
Clark, | would have tried him and would
have asked his conviction.
Take the corroborated testimony Of
William y. BOggs and then take that Of
the defense Who has he brought here?
Why Kcnney, Cotter, Butler, Cole and
Magee, everyone OF whom, with the cX-
ception OF Magcc, are under Indictment
in this court for almost the same offense
as that for which Clark is now on trial,
and endeavor by their testimony to close
the prison doors before the defendant
can enter them.
They all with the exception OF Magee
will be here again and every time they
come here venture the assertion that
there will be one less OF these bank loot
! .,,. IL Vl.l.