The sun., 1898-06-22
uNENV|AbLE
REPUTATION
That Thomas S. Clark Enjoys in
the City and Community in
Which He Resides.
THE PASTOR OF THE Church
He Attends Would Not Believe
Him On Oath.
TILTS BETWEEN LAWYERS
The Defense in the Famous Bank
LOOtlng Case Closes and the
Government Calls Wit.
nesseS in Rcbuttal.
The Beginning
of the
End.
TILTS BETWEEN LAWYERS

/ End.
The case of Thomas S. Clark, chargN
with aiding and abetting William n
Boggs in misapplying funds of the FRS
National Bank OF Dover was resumed il
the United States District Court yester
day morning.
The defense closed its case after court
had been in session about an hour anC
United States District Attorney Lewis G.
Nandegrift called number of witnesses
in rebuttal.
Among these were num5er of promi
nent men from the home of the defen.
dant at Dover and they were unanimous
in their opinion as to one thing, and that
was that the reputation of Thomas S.
Clark for veracity was bad.
Rev. Alfred Smith, pastor of Wesley
NJ. f. Church of Dover, OF which Mr..
Clark is a member, was also witness in
this instance and he asserted that the
reputation of Clark in the community
for peace and good order was bad. He
was cross-examined by Mr. Bigg>, coun-
sci for the defense, and asked if he would
believe Clark on oath. The gentleman
was evidently surprised when DR..
Smith emphaticaly asserted that he
would not.
In the afternoon William n. Boggs
was placed on the stand by the govern
ment to rebut certain testimony given by
William L. Cotter, Charles II. Rutler and
the defendant.
Very little was done at this session as
there was number of 'ti!ts' between
counsel in reference to the adlnissiblity
OF certain questions. Court adjourned
at O'Clock with the witness still on the
stand.
II is expected that all the testimony
viii be given in by today at noon and
the argument will consume all of the
afternoon session. Judge Bradford will
not charge the jury before tomorrow.
MORNING SESSION.
jefferson L.Ford was the first witness,
being called by the defence yesterday
mor..ing. In reply to questions by Mr.
Biggs, he said he was never part owner
ol the horse Brooklyn, as had been test-
fled by William n. Boggs. He said he
remembered conversation relative to
the horse Brooklyn, his understanding
being it was TO cost ST. 100.
lie believed it was bought by Clark.
His recollection was that Boegs had
agreed to advance money on the horse,
$500 being needed.
Mr. Nandegrift cross examined the
witness. He asked whether witness had
not on October 18th, 1893, given a check
for $500 for part payment Of the horse,
not necessarily signilying that he was
part owner. lie replied that he did not.
"What did you give the $500 check
for?' asked Mr.. Vandegrift. Mr.. Biggs
objected.
did you not, on or about October
18th, 1893, give a check for $500 which
was applied to the purchase of the horse
B ooklyn?" Mr. Vandegrift asked.
"Not to the best OF my knowledge"
the witness replied.
"Did you have conversation with
Stockley relative to the horse
Brook lyn?'
81 don't remember anything about
such conversation
''Whu was the title OF the horse in?"
81 understood Mr.. Clark owned the !
llnrsl'
"D. you say you had no interest in the
l,orsp?'
II had no ownership OF him.
'Wlat interest had you in him?'
II had bill OF keep against him."
Mr.. Vandegrift exhibited letter
which Ford said he wrote. When Mr..
Vand-grift asked him to whom it was
written Mr.. Biggs examined it. He then
handed it back to the witness. Mr..
Vandegriit offered the letter in evidence.
Mr.. Biggs objected, on the ground that
It had no bearing on the case. Mr..
Biggs remarked that he did not think
Mr.. Nandegrift would h so particular
about the letter, Mr.. Biggs having sug-
yested that witness read It.
"Well," replied Mr.. Vandegrift, 1--WE
must be particular in these cases, with
he Glars OF witnesses
'If you bring that matter before The
ury," Mr.. Biggs remarked, "I'll eet
you tnere."
The judge read the letter. He said he
,Ould not understand it, intimating
hat 1t would take race-track expert to
it.
Mr.. Biggs remarked that the district
'ttorney was grabbing at q straw in Of
ering the letter, Mr.. Vandegrift emphat-
cally denied it.
Mr.. Vandegrift then asked the wit
less to whom the letter was written.
ITO William N. Boggs," witness re-
olied. T.
Mr.. Vandegrift Withdrew the letter,
,ut said he would offer it later. II
Mr.. Biggs next placed Thomas s.
5lark, the defendant, UPON the stand.
Mr.. Biggs asked him: "Mr. Clark, you