The sun., 1898-12-17

1uch checks, and wrongfully deprived
the the bank of the use and control Of
such moneys until deposits subsequently
made by the defendant, as testified to,
covered the shortage thus created.
An intent to injure or defraud ma
tional bank within the meaning OF Sec
tioh $500 of the United States revised
statutes does not necessarily involve
malice or i'll will toward the bank.
There are few, if any, cases in which the
funds OF a bank are embezzled. .abstracted
or wilfully misapplied for personal gain.
The law presumes that every sane per.
son who has attained the age of discre-
tion contemplates and intends the neces-
sary or natural consequences OF his own
acts. 1t is sufficient that the unlawful
intent is such that If carried into execu-
tion it will necessarily or naturally in
jure or defraud the bank. 4.
It is wholly immaterial in this case
whether the money alleged to have been
taken from the funds Of The First Ma
tional Bank OF Dover, and applied to the
payment Of the alleged fraudulent checks
or any of them, set forth in the consoli-
dated Indictment, as it now stands, was
60 taken for the sole use, benefit and ad-
vantage of the defendant, or for the use,
benefit and advantage Of the defendant
with others; and it is also wholly imma-
terial whether the money alleged to have
been taken from the funds OF that bank
and applied to the payment Of the al
legged fraudulent checks for the use,
benefit and advantage of William n.
Boggs, was go taken for the sole use,
benefit and advantage of William N.
Boggs with others.
It is also wholly immaterial so far as
the guilt or innocence Of this defendant
is concerned whether the alleged fraudu-
lent checks of the defendant set forth in
the consolidated Indictment, as it now
stands, were intended for the use, bene-
fit and advantage of himself, on the
one hand, or for the use, benefit
and advantage of William N. Boggs,
on the other. provided the evidence in
the case supports the allegations in the
different counts of the consolidated in
dictment, as it now stands, or some one
or more of them. In fact it il admitted,
and not open to controversy, that all OF
the alleged fraudulent checks remaining
for your consideration were drawn by
the defendant either for his own use and
benefit or for the use and benefit Of Will
liam N. Boggs, as heretofore stated.
In the course OF the trial number ol
alleged contradictions Of the defendant
and William N. Boggs and other witnes'
ses have been 20 fully and recently dis,
cussed by the counsel in the case that
the court does not deem it necessary
here to allude to them. You will doubt
less consider them with discrimination
and attach to them such weight as you
deem them entitled to receive. With
respect to the question whether Will
liam N. Boggs has been corroborated, ii
is proper to call your attention to the fac
that he has been supported in statements
made by him on the witness stand no
only by documentary evidence, but BY
the testimony OF witnesses on natter
material to this case. 1t is unnecessary
here to recapitulate the instances of cor
roboration, but will draw your atten
ton to the statements of the presiden
and the cashier of the First Nationa
Bank OF Dover, as to what would o
would not have been permitted with re
spect to the treatment of checks on tina
bank.
The subject of corroboration Of Viii
liam N. Boggs has been fully laid befor
you by the witnesses and the document
ary evidence in the case, and is for you
consideration.
In deciding upon the weight whicl
should be given to the defendant, on tn
one hand, and to William N. Boggs OF
the other, it is important that yol
should consider the inherent probabili
ties of the testimony given by them re
spectively. ,.,
Before taking up the testimony OF VIII
liam N. Boggs is the testimon
of the defendant credible or in
incredible. The defendant has been
momber OF the bar of Kent county sine
1881, and has been actively engaged il
the practice of his profession. Accordin
to the testimony he bore no social rels
tions to William N. Boggs.
He admits that William N. Bogg
called for his advice with respect to tn
defalcation of the latter at The Firs
National Bank of Dover. Both he an
William N. Boggs corroborate each othe
that an interview with relation to tina
subject took place between them, al
though the defendant places the inter
view in the latter part of November
1894, while William N. Boggs states tina
it occurred in the early part of October
1895.
The defendant states that he, the de-
fendant, was astonished and horrified
the disclosures made by Boggs. The de
fendant further states that the intervie,
between himself and Boggs did not las
longer that from ten to fifteen minutes
while Boggs states that ways and mean
by which he might extricate himse
from his financial difficulty were full
discussed, and that the interview laste
at least three hours.
Which of these two statements ls tn
more probable? The defendant furthe
states that although be remained the al
torney for William N. Boggs. and me
him almost daily, he, the defendant
never made any inquiry of Boggs whethe
his defalcation had been made good, or j
relation to the subject in any manner
and that he, the defendant, did not n
ceive at any time after the consultatio
above referred to any information as
the defalcation Of Boggs until about
week before the flight Of the latter, Ma
80, 1897, although during all that tim
he continued counsel for Boggs.