Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-05-19

Thomas s. Clark Of Dover was ar.
raignnd in the United States Court on
IueBday afternoon on tho charge of vio-
latins snrtions 5209 and o440 of the Rn-
7iaad Statutes uf the United States. by
aiding and abetting William N. Boggs
to emhozzle SO, 900 from the First Ma
tionaI Bank OF Dover and conHpiring
with him to commit an offence against
the United States. Conviction under
the former section is punishabls by i'm
priaonmont of not leas than five years
aud not moro than ton, and under the
latter section by penalty of not less
than 81 GOO and not more than $40, 600
and imprisonment Of not more than two
yeate.
After few sentences o! the volumi-
ncua Indictment had heen read. John
Biggs, counsel for Clark, waived tine
furtnur reaiing. Judge bradford in
ouirod whether Clark was fully aware
Of tho contents of the indictment, and
Clark moulded and mir. Biggs replied in
tho affirmative.
A DEMURRER FILED.
Next, Mr.. Riggs iiled demurrer.
which said that the first II counts and
the lTth Goth, 10th, list and 42d counts
OF the indictment we're not sufficiently
stntud, that the LIST, Sth, lith, 18th,
goth and 10th counts did not sufficiently
sat forth any offence against tine ar-
oused, did nut sufficiently inform tht
| defendant of the nature and cause Of
| tho accusation against him, did not sol
/ forth tts offence with which the do
PENDANT was intsnded to be charged
therein with clearneas or necessary GER
tainty to apprise him Of tho crime witt
which no stood charged, did not furnish
the accused with such u description o
the charges againat him as would cnahl,
him to make his defence or avail him
self of his conviction or acquittal fo
protection against further prosecution
Cor this same cause, aid not inioIm TIL
court OF the facts alleged 40 that i
might decide whether they were sutli
Gent in law to support conviction j
ono could be had and consisted OF
statement of conclusion and not o
facts constituting the accusation agains
tho defendant, that the let, 18TH 10th
1lst ami l2d counts alleged that Bogg
emhez1lei certain funds OF tho banl
for the use, henstit and advantage O
Clark and. the word emhezzlen havinl
fixed and technical meaning, Bogg
could not have embezzlsn said funds a
alleged in aaid counts for the use, bane
fit and advantage AZ CLARK or conspire
80 TO do that said counts we're other
wise imperfect, irregular and insuliicien
in law ami that the indictment was il
other respects uncertain, informal an
insufficient.
STATUTE OF LIMITATION.
MIR. Digga explained that the indict
mont set forth IL checks OF whic
seven, he snid, were barred by th
statute Of limitation. lie added that
after examining the question, it wa
clear in his mind that the defendant
ii hu pleaded not guilty, would not
abls to takn advantage Of the statute {
limitation. Judge Bradford reptile
that there would not lie any preiudiC
: tn the defendant on TINT score, provide
lie made seasonahle application befoI
, the trial to put 10 the proper technics
) expression.
IDENTIFICATION OF CHECKS.
MIR. Biggs stated that two checks
the MANS of the payee were easil
identified, but two other checks did nc
: give the name Of the payee or datei
The fact that the checks were mat
payable on tho First National Bank. b
/. contendod. was no guide to the defenc'
because the defendant gave all b
l checks On that bank. II he had tt
oates of the checks. he continued,
would be easier for the defence I
= identify them. lilo asked that II
government flo bill OF particulars
a 4 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY.
On behalf OF the Defendant. Mr.. Bigl
4 pleaded not guilty TO the counts n,
!, enumerated in tho demurrer.
h Judge bradford announced that arg,
ment or the demurrer would beg
n at 10 o'clock this morning, and TIL
a Clarll'a trial would begin at H.
O O'Clock next Tuesday morning. Arg
j IL emit IN tina demurrer was deferrt
o until to-day at the suggestion
District Attorney Nandegrift. who ga
o that other matters would require b
il attention mennwhils.