The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1898-06-24
THE CHARGE
T0THE JURY.
The Case OF Thomas S.
Clark NOWin the Hands
OF the Jury.

At tho afternoon session Of court Mr..
Bigss said; No one would he convicted on
such testimony as has boen produced here,
nor would any of that jury want anybody
that Is dear to them sent to the penitcht'
iary on the unsupported word OF William
N. Boxss. No one would wunt ANYBODY
dear to;him sent TO the penitentiary to be-
come tissunpuuu6e6h df robbers, murder
era and thieves Don't blast this man 8
life. Don'G do it on ouch testimony. Don
disgrace his wife and children. she, who
during all these trials have $1,000 Dy MN
and now stands by him Don't disgrace
her or their children on such testimony as
that given by william N. Boggs. There
Is not hing more true 10 the Holy VIII
than that the sins Of the parents Will be
visited upon the children OF tho third and
fourth generation. Don't let the burden
fall upon them. He may be locked up
away from tho world, but tho Illumination
is on them. You cannot convict him on
the testimony of William N. Boggs You
must bs sati fled thu when he gave, IN
1873, tboss four checks that h, Intended to
defraud and injurs the First National
Bank Of Dover, aud you have no test!-
nony that ho intended So TO do except tho
unsupported and uncurroborated word of
William N. Boggs
MR.. vANDEGRIFT REPLIES.
Mr.. Vandegrift followed MIR. Biggs, and
he spoke for abuut an houT, devotlES his
time to replying to tho points brought out
by the attorney for the defense. Mr. Van.
degrift said that the United States Gov
ern,nent WAS not In the court 10 ask any
thing unfair of jury or to ask for fhs con
yction of man unless The jury was salts.
fled beyond uvery reasonable uouOa thnt
he was guilty The government asks noth-
ing uafair, nor does 1t ask .he jury to lay
ono mite ut the, door OF Thomas 5. Clark
that does rfBrfelnng there.
Mr.. Vandegrift compared Bogss with
the witnesses hat had been brought by
the defense, saying that there was no hope
for Buggs, rs tue prison doCrs stood open
to roneiyu him, but the other men had
come and nailed their solemn oaths across
tho doors of the jail to prevent themselves
from going in. There is Il vast wrong
that Is to 10 righted 1t is not q wrong
against William N Boggs, but crime
against the citizens OF this state that Is 70
be righted, and the jury should cut 1t out
as they would cut out cancer, no lnntter
who would suffer.
That there was am rrLngcmehJ between
William N. Boggs ami Thomas 5. CLARK
that the checks were to be paid had been
proven conc.usvely The first check for
$3.50 as given on May II, and Thomas 5.
Clark made no attempt to pay ~ ANU ne
had bJeu urged to do SO uy Wllilnih N.
Boggs, ana then on May IA, the day alter
he had given the second check !or S|oo, uo
gave aworth'css draft.
Ii Thomas S. Clark had been an honest
man and wanted to pay that check with
tho daft, why did he notao to the proper
officers of the bank and tell ;hom way nc
had given the draft, CT why dldn't he II
he wanted to pay tho checks, go to tho oll1-
GERS of the bank and offer to transfer to
them his stock account, which he claimed
was worth more than $500, and would nave
paid Tie two checks? He had an arr ange-
ineut with Bogss and ahat Is why he gaze
the draft to Boggs and diI not give IL
to The officers of thu bank. He could not
have gono to he officers Of tho bank and
offered to tran fer his stock. II That hau
b,on done they would nave found out thhC
he hal already taken $3.50 out Of the Dank.
They would have learned that he had oD-
tained that amount from the bank Whcn
he did not have credit for cents with the
bank, let alone $500 The defense mas not
attempted to explain why that bond was
given or for tho money that IL was eiNoh.
They said it was for borrowed money DuG
they huyo failed to show how the money
WAS borrowed 1t was secured by tho
Cushing OF the defendants checks Ihe
defense has not attempted to explain tLat
bond because 1t cannot explain 1t
The government was never better satlS-
fed than when tho defonse offered in eTl-
denco II he indictments III tho other cases.
Take the Indictment Of William NJ Cotter
Look ct the back Of it. There isn schea-
ulc of checks he is charged with tie draw
ing and &c. ting caShed by fraudulent
rangomont. Look at all the indictments.
Study them closely and then say wAath-
or or not the men who testified for the de.
fense were not interested in closing The
prison dorrs. ;,
II never prosecute a man. said Mr..
Vandegrift, "for whom DO not 1901 the
greatest sorrow ior those who arc near anu
dear TO him.
1 have duty and so have you, gentle
men of the jury. Those who arc mar and
dear to him arc rot responsible, but they
must suffer un old agony for his criino.
The goyernmenv cannot live on sympathy.
When you think OF those who ato dear to
this defendant, also think Of those whp
are denr to this young man. whose lie has
been wreckc! iiy this defendant man
of mature years who led Tho younger man
on 10 commit great wrongs. when
yuu are through with thinking OF him ana
now his life has been ruined bv u man or
mature years us this defendant Is, turl vour
eyes to the young wife and babies of Will
liam n Boggs. Think of them from whom
ho was compelled t, flee for tho crime This
defendant brought upon him.
(Coatinucd on Fourth Plge0