Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-06-23

Mn6n tnB OnltBu EolHtb9 biSJtlcl
Court opened yesterday afternoon week
the case against Thomas S. Clark was
resumed.
Harry A. Richardson, president of
the First National Bank OF Dover, took
4 the stand at his own request in order
n that he might explain some OF his testi
mony given on Tuesday relative to
Clark's alleged Indebtedness to the
bank. He said that when he testitied
thut CLARK did not owe anything he
y had not in mind she S4, 600 bond, which
y had heen assigned by Clark TO Boggs
a and by Boggs to the bank and which
N the bank now holds. lie said the bank
also holds two notes given by Clark.
one for about $500 and the other for
h about Sl00, but as neither is due 1t ia
N not considered that Clark owes any
thing Gu them. One ia considered good,
no explained, and the other not so gopd.
william N. Boegs, the defanting
teller, on being called by Mr.. Vande'
grift, identified two checks given by
Thomas S. Clark to E. b. Cuihhert y
NJ Co., dated May Sth and 18th, 1896.
"a which had been paid at the Dover hank.
Mr.. Vandegrift, referring to one, asked
who paid it.
~ did" replied Boggs.
M "How did you pay it?" Mr.. Vande-
grift asked.
(. "Out Of the funds OF the bank" was
M the reply. Questions aud answers fol.
N lowed, Mr.. Vandegrift asking: Had
,M Clark the money in the bank at the
4. timer
mot sufficient funds !"
"Why did you pay them, then"
N ''At the request of Thomns s. Clark.
as ! had paid many checks for him
rrior to that time.
"Why did you do so?"
NJ "On the representation OF Clark thai
NJ the payment of the checks would bt
the means of helpiug out tho shortage
| at the bank, which he knew existed.'
M When asked what he meant by say
Nv ing that CLARK knew a shortage existec
MI he replied 81 refer to ths vast mum
a khsr Of cbeuSs which / had previousl!
n casbed for Clark out Of the funds of thi
A kank.
VI This brought Mr.. Riggs, counsel 70
The defendant, to his feet. He SAT-
he thoughv Mr.. Vandegrift was gettinl
lM off the subject We are hore, he OK
f f plaiued, to answer to the charges il
MI This indictment, which are confined {
~ II checka, covering period from Oci0
M ber Goth. 1893. to November 30th, 1886
All OF the general counts are out. Ther
n are 46 in all. Nineteen were demurre
N in and are out and there aio 27 laft
II The % counts descrhe auii refer to th
Y ii checka. lie objected to the proaecu
tinn going into anything not in the ~
HI dictment.
NJ In reply to Mr.. Riggs, Judge Brat
ford salt ii was matter for considers
tion as to how far nther transaction
A might be given to the jury no evidence
So far there had been no clean CT
n question on tho subject calling for II
III ruling OF the court.
In order that the question might
n argued, Mr.. Vandsgrift asked Boggs
NJ he DID not on juno 23d, 1891, pay Il
Il Clark a check for Sl30 out of the funI
of the bank and not out Of any Inone
to which CLARK was entitled. by d
\ ruction of Mr.. Vandegrift, tho witne
4 did not reply, whereupon Mr. Big
n cited authorities in support OF his CO
tention. lie thought the prosecute
should conline the proof to tending
/ show with what intent the two chec
II were givan, so that the court might o
hear tostimuny concerning che
given in 1891, unless tho court waa sat
fied that such testimony would thrt
Bome light upon the intent with whi
the checks referred tn were given.
H Mr.. Vandegrift said he thought
NJ cases cited by MIR. Biggs aottled
III right of the government to oHer
nut in just the kind of evidence he
endeavoring to place before the col
and Jury lie said he was prepared
proye to the court and jury that fr'
nj 1888 on through 1894, 1895 and III
there was continuous line of tra
Hctions similar tu the $3.50 Cuthb
checks referred to.
Mr.. BiggH, replying to Mr.. Van
H grift, said hethought permission slo'
not be given to offer testimony o'
cerniug checks prior to 1876 in oruer
prove anything connected with
q checks given in lS06.
The judge, after referring to seve
4, thorities, said the testimony m
fIve some relevancy, but the court CT
hot say that IL the district attorns!
E able to show that the transactions pi
to those On which the jury is to pI
wore of kindred nature, between
hnme parties, involving similar lntf
buch testimony would be misleading
t the jury. The court, therefore, !
that the testimony was adm issa6le
long as the district attorney could al
that the intent was gindreu.
W Mr.. Vandegrifr announced, howe
that he would withdraw the ques
4 for the present, and, addressing Boz
asSed the following question: -
stated that the two checks dated
6th and 18th. 1896, were paid out Of
funds of the bank by previous arral
ment with Thomas $. Clark. '
there similar arrangements for
withdrawal Of moneys from the 3
prior to this time, May Sth, 1862
~ V"There were,'' Boggs replied.
In which checks we're given by
paid by you?''
"Yes, sir. ~
"Where are those checks given
him and held by you?"
"All OF tho cnecks paid for him
of tho funds of the bank and not OF
wise provided for, which had
April 9th, 1897, were delivered to hi
what elSeY'
"Letters, telegrDms &c., relaiin
the checks. -
"What was the aggregate OF
checlSs delivered on April 9th?'
Between s3. 700 and SD, 500.
were checks OF his own. There
also money distracted for him
checks OF other people.