Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-12-15
JoURNAIwILMING1oN DELAwAnE

witness SAID, was irregular, WnereuVsu
Mr.. Vandegrift asked him II ~ GOULD
have been accomplished except. by
combination Of somebody outside with
somebody in the bank, The defenee
objected, Mr.. Riggs commanding that
that was the very question which the
Jury was 10 eleterinine- whether there
was combination between the de-
PENDANT and William n. Boggs.
Mr.. Vandegrift contended that he
had n perfect right to, show by Mr..
Ross, nm expert accountant, how such
| condition might have been brought
| about; the books showed balances and
small overdrafts. when there were
really large overdrafts, and ho simply
wanted the Witness to give an eNplana"
| tion OF how such result could have
been accomplished.
In the COURSE Of the discussion Judge
Bradford said II had been admitted
that the defendant gave checks Tor the
use of Boggs,
"I.onncd checlss.'' Massrs, Bird and
giRgs remarked, by way Of correcting
tho court,
"oh," tho Judge replied, II don't
care anything about the word loan. "
| Mr.. Vnndegyift's question wns ruled
ont, after which court adjourned until
1890 o'clock Friday morning.
The government rested during the
morning and Tho defence opened, :,
At tho opening Of the trial Mr..
yandegrift asked pormission to intro
duce in evidence tho Il. 4. Cooper
account in tho ledger of Cuthbert a.
Co., showing the purchase of Bay
State CHS stock by Cooper on May
It'll, 1896, but it was dscided that the
presence OF Mr.. Saxton Of Philadel-
phia, would be necessary.
T. Edward Ross was called by Dis
trict Attorney Vandegrift TO testify
relative to drafts heretofore referred to.
The g., $50 draft, dated May 9th, 1905,
he said, was drawn by II. II. kenney
on G.. Reibach Of Calumet. Mich,
and sent to the Hanover Bank of New
York for collection; on June 9th, q
draft drawn by 'R. X. K, attorney. +"
for S3, $50, on a party at Beaufort, n.
G., was sent to the Philadelphia
National Bank; ON July 10th, n draft
, drawn by 4. s. Clark, for Sl,U33. IL,
} on L. w. Maggie, was sent to the Han.
over Bank; on August 18th, draft oil
r. S. CLARK on w. Schwartz, for
sl.se6. 10, was sent to the Hanover
Bank.
! Witness said the s1,033. IS draft was
sent away upon the return of the SO,
, 950 draft; also that the 81, 033. IL draft
came hack on July 23d, but was moi
charged on the books of the bank
/ until August 18th, when, the 81, 800. Al
D draft was sent away,
Mr.. Ross explained thu method Of
r bookkeeping Mt tho bank, saying j
r was the improved Boston system, apt
legitimate overtirafts would show il
: red ink, adding that the overdraft
: he had spoken OF were not leglti
Q n,ate, vs. they did not show In red ink
q In reply TO Mr., Vapdegriit, witnes
g said he found, by examining the book
! OF the two Dover banks that $50
+, Kenney check was received on Jun
0 9Th, 1896; another $500 check op Jun
10th; on July 2bth Kenney's acooup
q was charged with $500: ON July Is
: there was u check for $500. which VIII
i charged on September Sth on Angus
18th there were two checks outstand
r ing The last draft, Of 81, 1906 10, wa
returned unpaid on August 18th, wit
costs Of 81 20, which was charged u
n on September 25th, making the tota
o amount outstanding on that date
L August 10Th, -, S92,G9.
Il Witness did not have all Of Kenney
VI checks 10 making up tho schedule
II il he had he could have made NOR
il complete schedule.
y In reply 10 Mr. Bird, who conducte
n the cross examination, witness sui
X tho bank did not loes anything O
10 any Of kcnney's checks; that none {
N the shortage of sl07, coo was attribu
- ablo to him.
~ Mr.. bird asked the witness IL, aft,
10 tho Inst trial Of Kenney, he did M
ID congratulate George I'll, Gildersleeve
20 near Dover one Of tho Jurors, on h
III vote for Kenney's acquittnl, at Il
ot office Of Citizen 4 ReSmeyer, In Phil
y delphia, in the presence OF Massr
,k Citizen and Rexmayer, about July 9tl
ST Mr.. Ross replied that he did n
I'd know any Of the persons mention,
aud never had boon 10 the Office
n Citizen X Rexmeyer, but his broth
IL might have been, rs he had busine
to with the firm, which is IN the Who'll
ed sale grocery business. He did not kne
r.. anything about that:
In reply to Mr.. Vantlcgrift, witpt
Us said that when he said the bank lc
us nothing on Kenney's checks, he ]
ce count. There was, however, II less
ng the 5000 Cuthbrrt, Anderson and Sh;
mt checks, which wcre for tho use
he Boggs, The chorks for Renney's o,
h. use were finally paid, but thero wor
of be loss on interest on the money
sr- the time it was withheld.
ks Mr.. Bird asl;etl witness what
he loss on interest was, considering u
Is, tho time when the defendant h
Of large balances, from May LIST 10 L
ng cember 3lst, 1885.
rot Witness could not giyo an estims
On anil did not care to guess at ii.
an Tho documentary evidence in rcga
nal ito tho $1,000 Cuthhnrt chec'; a
40 kenney's interview with a Baltinp
3D. Sun reporter, appearing in that pal
I y m june 10th, 1898, were offered
to Mr.. Vandegrift. The. former was {
al. United on both sides, and 10 regard
ich the interview Thomas j. Ewall,
reporter Of the Baltimore Sun, v
30, called. He stated thai he interview
lay nv, Kcnney at Dover on June o
nat had 1t written by q Typewriter a
Gas submitted 1t to Kenney before it y
ore printed, Kennay, no said, talked "
cks freely after no had gone to see hi
rly Mr.. VRndegrift asked whether tho
cen teryiow was madn at KeDney's solici
ave tion. Ewall said he had no kno
ep- edge of any solicitation On the part
tho Kenney.
%. Robert G.. Fulton, who was IN
s. employ of Cuthbert & %, in the snr
was and summer of 1906, said no had b,
ler' given power Of attorney TO deal
his stocks for Boggs.
,ert John IL. Bateman, upon being cal
9th by Mr. Vandegrift, corrected ste
The ment, made yesterday, He said