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

lion o! this moneya, funds or credits OF
the bank by meanH OF thuBe checks;
nor can you find him guilty Of any con
spiracy with William N, Buegs to
effect any abstraction of wilful misap-
plicRtion OF. tho mOneys, funda or
crcdita Of tho bank by means of those
checks. This language you will. OF
course, understand ig used solely in refer
unUe TO alleged fraudulent checks drawn
and paid prior to April 21th, lSsNo; and
not TO the alleged rfudulent checks
given by the defendant and paid out OF
tho funda OF tho First National Bunk OF
Dover aince that date.
But while you cannot find tho defend
ant guilty Of aiding or nhetting vii
liam n. Boggs in affecting any abstrac-
tion or wilful miBapplIcation OF the
moneys, funds or credits OF tho First
National Bank OF Dover prior TO April
| 2ath, 1895; and while you cannot find the
defendant guilty Of conHpiring with Wi.
liam N. Boggs TO effect any abstraction
OF misapplicatiou of the moneys. funds
or credits Of the bRnk prior TO that date,
you arc at liberty to consider such fraud.
ulsnt checks. IL any bave been pIoyoh
to your satisfaction, as w0ra drawn by DO
PENDANT md paid out OF the funds of tho
First National Bank of Dover not for
tho purpose OF conrcting the defend
ant by reason nf tho drawing and pay
ment Of those checlSg, shut only as tond-
lug to show tho intent of the deiOndant
in drawing the checks sat forth in the
indictment since April 25th, 1893.
Before adverting to tho evidence in
tho caso shall now bring to your mt
tention an elementary principle OF law
necessary for your guidance in detor
mining upon your verdict Tho law
presumes that persons charged with
crime ara innucant until they are proved
by compliant evidence to be guilty.
This presumption is evidence in favor
Of tho defendant and stands Ms his
sufficient protection unless it h0s heen
overcome and removed by the evidence
in this caBe, taken Rs a whole, proving
his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
10 Justify verdict OF guilty the cyl
dencc aihuced in this cuse, as a whole,
must be- such as to cxclnde every
reasonable hypothesis, hut that of guilt
of tho Defendant aa charge in one or
more Of the counts Of tho indictment; ;
anil from this, IL, of course, follows
that IL the jury find that all the evi
donce 10 the case, when taken together,
Is as compatible with the theury OF in
nocenco Ra with the theory of guilt
there should be an ncquittal. The com
mission of u criminal offence can he
proved by circumstantial evidence as
wall az by direct evidence, provided
the circumstances proved, together with
reasonable differences drawn from thom,
are such as to leave no reasonable doubt
10 the minds OF tho Jury that the de-
: PENDANT is guilty. You are to take into
consideration all the evidence in this
} case, both direct and circumstantial,
I together with oil reasonable differences
2 TO be drawn from that evidence, in mr.
I irving at conrlusion. A reasonable
D iauht is doubt based on reason and
which ia reasonable in view Of all the
{ evidence. IL 10 not n whimsical, arhi-
a trary or purely speculative doubt; nor
q mere oniecture or guess. II, after
an impartial comparison and cunsidera
tion OF all the evidence you can can.
diuly cay that you are not satisfied with
a the defendants guilt, you have q reason
q able doubt; hut il, after such impartial
4 comparison and consideration of all the
/ evidence yuu can truthfully say that
you have a settled and fixed conviction
/. of the defendant's guilt, such as you
L would he willing to act upon in the
!. more weighty and important matters
Il relating to your own affairs, you have
N no reasonable doubt and in that "a nsp
q should find veraict Of guilty. Abso
/. Lutte certainty 10 not required for such
j 0 verdict. Proof beyond reasonable
v doubt. as above aofned, is sutlinient.
n While the court brings to your atten-
q tim eomo Of the evidence on both sides,
II you are instructed that you are not il
!, the least to he controlled by anything
il which has been or shall be stated b,
al la -
N this case. While it is my duty to cal
\. your attention to such PORTIONS of th,
IN evidence as in the judgment of th
At court may aid you in arriving at jus
1 verdict, you arU to give To the testi
id mony only such weight and effect a
4. you consider it entitled to.
al After reviewing, in detail, the owl
o, dence with respect to Boggs' transac
I. tiona, the various checka and Clark
M balances in bank, the court said:
10 William N. Bosss haa pleaded guilt
Mt to the charge of unlawfully embezzling
I'd abstraGting and misapplying tn
ly moneys, fundsiand credits of the Firs
10 National Bank of Dover. In this cas-
n. he has testified in the character of a
40 accomplioe. While the testimony of a
ut accomplish should always be receive
al with caution and Weighed and scrutin
I'D lied with great care by the jury, til
to accomplish is nevertheless compsten
ts witness The degree OF credit whic
r. should bs given TO the testimony at a
sd accuinpllce 10 matter eXcluaivel
n, within tie province of tho jury.
n While tho jury as matter OF la
It, may convict a person accused OF a gray
or CrImu upon tho uucnrroborated tost
of mony Of 40 accomplice it ia, however
1t usual for Che court to adviss the iur
Mt against a conviction unlegs the test
IT. lnony of thu accomplish hHs been col
il. roborated 10y Gompetent evidence j
id some material part or parts. This col
rt roborRtion need not extend to all maj
Ter ters Justified to by the accomnlicc, hui
d. il hving shown that thu accomplish ha
no testified truly in some particulars,
ita may he inferred by the jury that b
ial has ia others In this case you are t
ed determine, upon the evidence, whetht
to William N. Bogga has or has not bee
It's corroborated with respect to materii
ct narts of his testimony by tho documer
cd tary evidence and the testimony
N. other witnesseu; md you arc also
10 determine whether or not William \
lily Boggs has heen successfully cuntri
10, dicred with respect to any material no.
ial tion of his testimony. 1t is also tru
nd gentlemen, that while the court is carr
tn fu to remind you that the credit
IL; William N. Boggs is entirely FOR yor
mt consideration, il would lie very far frol
m. your duty IL, disrsgarding what mt
to seem To you the natural and inherent