The sun., 1898-12-17

he 1ury, Inc cllC0Oetoucoy ~ Qko -
y ~ be such that an established reputa-
ion for honesty and integrity on the part
II the defendant create q reasonable
loubt as to his guilt, although without
,uch reputation the evidence in the case
would be convincing and justify q ver'
lict Of guilty.
In another case the circumstances may
De such as would require Q verdict OF
,uilty not Tithstanding an established
reputation for honesty and integrity on
;be part OF the defendant. It does not
necessarily follow from the fact that a
man has good reputation for honesty
and integrity that he actually possesses
hose traits Of chartcter. The mere pos
session Of such reputation does not
render the person possessing it incapable
Of committing crime involving dlshon.
estv and want of integrity.
1t is within the common knowledge OF
that many persons bearing o
good reputation have nevertheless been
guilty OF crime. While the reputation
Of the defendant for honesty and integ.
rity is for your consideration as part of
the evidence in the case, it is entitled to
lust the weight, no less and no more,
which you, upon a review of all the evil
dence in the case and in the exercise OF a
sound judgment shall attach 10 it. While
the court brings to your attention some
OF the evidence on both sides you are in
structed that you are not in the least to
be controlled which has been or shall be
stated by the court in relation to the
evidence in this case, and are to exercise
your own independent judgment in rela-
ton to the same. While it is my duty
to call your attention to such portions OF
the evidence as in the judgment Of the
court may aid you in arriving at jus:
verdict, you are to give to the testimony
only such weight and effect as you con-
cider it entitled to.
The alleged fraudulent checks set forth
in the consolidated indictment, as i
now stands, it is admitted were all
drawn by the defendant on The First
National Bank of Dover, and were paid
out of its funds by the teller, as fol
lows:
A check drawn May s, 1896, for $3.50
in favor of E. B. Cuthbert & Company
for the use and benefit of the defendant
and paid May IL, 1896; check drawn
MAY l2, 1896, for $3.50, in favor of E. b
Cuthbert q Company, for the use anc
benefit of the defendant, and paid May
IA, 1896; a check drawn June 2, 1896, fol
$500, in favor of E. B. Cuthbert 4 Com
pany, for the use and benefit of the de
fendant, and paid June 4, 1896; another
check drawn June 2, 1896, for $500, ir
favor of f. B. Cuthbert & Company, fol
the use and benefit OF the defendant
and paid June 4, 1896; a check drawn
June 4, 1896, for $500, in favor of E. B
Cuthbert & Company, for the use ant
benefit of the defendant, and paid JUNE
6, 1896; check drawn June l3, 1896 fol
$500, in favor of L. B. Cuthbert & Com
pany, for the use and benefit Of the de
fendant, and paid June l6, 1896; checl
drawn June 20, 1896, for $500, in favo
of Z. B. Cuthbert & Company, for thu
use and benefit of the defendant, ant
paid July l, 1896; check drawn July 2
1896, for 81 900, in favor of E. B. Cuth
bert & Company, for the use and benefi
of the defendant, and paid July 3, 1896
a check drawn September %, 1896, fc
5000, in favor of Z. B. Cuthbert 4 Com
panv, for the use and benefit Of William
N. Boggs, and paid September "a, 1896
a check drawn September 81, 1896, 70
$500, in favor of William Anderson, 70
the use and benefit Of William N. Boggs
and paid September 25, 1896; checl
drawn Sept. so, 1896, for $3.50 in favor 0
William Anderson, for the use and bene
fit of William n. Boggs, and paid DC
tober 6, 1896; check drawn October 16
1896, for $275, in favor of William An
derson, for the use and benefit of viii
liam N. Boggs, and paid October 20, 1896
check drawn October %, 1896, for $3.50
in favor OF William Anderson. tor tn
Use and benefit of William N. Boggs
and paid October 26, lS96:a cheek draw
November 27, 1896, for 5000, in favor G
William Anderson, for the use and bene
fit of William N. Boggs, and paid De
cember l, 1896; and check drawn O.
or about May 6, 1896, for 81 $50, in favo
OF Samuel L. Shaw, Sheriff, for tn
use and benefit of William N. Boggs an
paid May 6, 1896.
There is evidence in the case consist
ing not only of the testimony of Williar
N. Boggs, but of documentary evidenc
and Of the testimony Oft. Edward Rosl
the expert accountant, based upon
comparison of the books of the Farmers
Bank at Dover and the Union Nationt
Bank at Wilmington, with the indivit
ual ledger of the First National Bank {
Dover,'to the effect that at the times tn
checks set forth in the consolidated il
dictment, as it now stands, respectivel
were drawn by the defendant and pal
out of the funds of the First Nation.
Bank of Dover, the account of the d.
fendant was either overdrawn and som,
times overdrawn to a large amount. {
J that the defendant had not sufficiel
J moneys to his credit in his account
that bank to meet these checks.
To begin with the eight checks draw
by the defendant in favor of f. B. Gut
bert 4 Company, for the use and benel
! of the defendant, as above mentione
the evidence last referred to is to Il
effect that upon the payment of Il
I check for $3.50 on May l2, 1885, the
fendant had actually overdrawn his a
g count with the First National Bank
Dover in the sum of $77.44, without ia
! ing into consideration any other chec
4 Of the defendant on that bank theret
# fore paid out of its funds and never ma
: good to the bank. The check for So
i was not charged in the defendants 6
e count until May %, 1896.
u If the other checks of the defenda