Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-12-22
TRIAL OF SENATOR KENNEY
continued from second page,

yOtl can trutn1ully say tuub yuu iidso -
liked conviction OF the defendants
guilt, such as you would be willing to
act upon in the more weighty and inn
portant matters relating to your Owl
affairs, you have no reasonable doubt.
and in that case should lind Q verdict
Of guilty. Absolute certointygis not re-
ouired for such a verdict. Proof be-.
yond reasonable doubt as above de-
fined is sufficient" Es
The Judge reviewed at length the
evidence ard took up the checks and
the defendants overdrafts- at various
times, as shown by the examination OF
the books by Accountant Ross, He
stated that checks were carried for
various lengths Of time, the average
period being 80 days.
civilian N. Boggs," he said, "has
pleaded guilty to the charge OF unlaw-
fully embezzling, abstracting and mis-
anplying the moneys, funds and credits
al the First National Bank of Dover.
and ia this case he has testified in the
character of an aceomplice. While the
testimony of an accomplice should
always be received with caution and
weighed and scrutinized with great
care by the jury, the accomplish is
nevertheless competent witness, and
the degree of credit which should be
given to the testimony of an accomplish
| Ia matter exclusively within the prov
| incc of the jury. While the jury as a
matter of law may convict a person ac-l
cused Of grave crime upon the unoor-
roborated testimony of an accomplish,
it is, however, usual for the court to
advise the Jury against conviction I'M
less the testimony of the accomplish
has been corroborated by competent
evidence in some material part or parts
The confederation need not extend to
all matters testified to by the accom-
plice, but it being shown that the ac-
complete has testified truly IN some
particulars, il may be inferred by the
Jury that he has in others. In this
case you are to determine upon the evi-i
dence whether William N. Boggs has or
\ has not boon corroborated with respect
Ito material parts of his testimony by
ythe documentary evidence and the ties
timony of other witnesses and you are
also to determine whether or not Will
liam N. Boggs has been successfully
contradicted, II at all, with respect to
any material portion of his testimony.
1t is also true, gentlemen, that while
the court is careful to remind you that
the credit of William N. Boggs is en-
tirely for your consideration, it would
be very far from your duty if, disre-'
garding what may seem to you natural
and inherently truthful testimony given
by him, you should permit yourselves
to be carried away by fierce denuncia-
tions, by heated language, and by ex-
cited and unwarranted epithets applied
to him. On the contrary, with meas
ured and impartial deliberation, like
men who have large interest at stake,
you should carefully, anxiously and
judicially scan and weigh the evidence
of William N. Boggs.
The law permits the defendant, at
his own request, to testify in his own
behalf The defendant here has availed
himself Of this right. His testimony is
before you and you must determine
how far it is credible. The deep per-
sonal interest which he has in the re-
suit Of this case should be considered
by you in weighing his evidence and
in determining how far, or to what OK
tent, If at all, it is worthy of credit.
In considering the credibility of or
weight which you should give'to the
testimony of the defendant, you should
regard, among other things, the inner
ent probability or improbability of his
statements, his intelligence or want of
intelligence, his opportunities for.
knowledge of business methods, and to
what extent, If any, he has been cor
federated by other evidence in the case.
You should especially look to the i'm.
terest any witness who has testified he
fore you in this case has in its result.
Where a witness has a direct personal
interest in the result of case the
temptation is strong to color, pervert
or withhold the facts. 1
The defendant in his testimony de-
MES in effect any fraud on his part in
connection with any of the checks set
forth in the consolidated Indictment as
it now stands. The defendant, how
ever, further testified that he drew
checks in the ordinary course of his
business without any question as to
whether his account would be good at
the time or not, and always relied upon
the bank to give him notice when any
of his checks should come in if his ac-
count was not sufficient to meet it.
The defendant also denies the state
ment made by William N. Boggs as to
the discussion of the extradition laws,
and his advising William N. Boggs to
go to Cuba.
muCn HAS D6til sftiu vi tiib SuDJGGb
of overdrafts and the circumstances
under which they are or are not crimi-
nal under section 5, 200 of the United
States Revised Statutes. A man may
overdraw his account in bank and be
innocent of any evil or unlawful pur-
pose. Overdrafts are not uncommon in
bank transactions. A bank may desire
to accommodate temporarily deposit
tor, and il depositor knowingly makes
an overdraft, his relations with the
bank or its officials may be such as, to
prevent the faint of criminality from,
attaching to the transaction. But no
man who is without a balance to his
credit in a bank, or who has only an
insufficient balance, has right to
draw checks for considerable amounts,
without the knowledge or consent Of
the proper officials, and with fraudu.
lent intent that the moneys of the
bank in which he has no funds or moi
sufficient funds TO his credit, should bt
applied to the payment of those checks
III he knew or had good reason to be.
lieve when he drew the checks set forth
in consolidated Indictment, part /, a.
it now stands, that they or anyto
them were to be fraudulently paid by
William N. Boggs, the teller, out of TIL,
funds of the bank, and not out of an,
funds to which he, the defendant, coult
iegitimately resort, he had the guilty
intent, and although it may have beer
the intent of the defendant at the tim,
he drew the alleged fraudulent check
mentioned in consolidated indictment
part, l, to finally recompense or remed,
the injury resulting from his act to til,
First National Bank of Dover, such al
intent to correct the wrong does not alb