The sun., 1898-06-25

which the existence of frird il in issue
evidence cf other acts and coiLgs OF the
defendant of kindred character are ad-
( missibl in order to illustrate or establish
his intent or motive in doing the partic-
ular act or acts direct iy in question. A
single act taken by itself NAV not be de-
cisive either way; but when taken in
connection with others oi like character
and nature the intent accompanying the
doing Of the particular act OF acts charged
as unlawful may be demonstrated almost
with conclusive certainty. II you are
satisted that tie defendant from 1888 up
to November -, 1896, drew the various
checks above enumerated, including
those Immediately in question, upon The
First National Bank Of Dover for his own
Uses or purposes in whole or in part,
when al the time so drawing and pro-
curing the payment OF such checks out
! Of the funds Of the bank his account was
either overdrawn or his balances were
wholly insufficient to pay such checks,
it is for you to determine whether the
intention OF the defendant toward the
bank in drawing and procuring the pay
ment of such checks was not continu-
ing intention, one and the same, from
the time he drew the first Of such checks
until he drew the last one, and, ii go,
what that intention was. 1t has ap-
peared in evidence that during the
period covered by these checks the
defendants deposit book was repeated
ly settled. The defendant, having
chosen to be witness in his own be-
half, had the same right as other wit
nesses to testify. Ye: he has not in any
part OF bis testimony questioned the ac-
curacy oi the account OF his credits as
shown by the settlement OF bis deposit
book or the statement OF such credits as
shown by the individual ledger; nor has
the defendant testified that he knew or
believed al the time he drew any Of the
above enumerated checks upon The First
National Bank Of Dover that there was
money to his credit in the bank sufficient
to meet such check or checks. Does or
does not this circumstance amount to a
cOrrObOration BY the defendant of the
testimony Of William \. Boggs upon a
material pJint in the case? This is for
your determination as intelligent and
conscientious men. The defendant testi-
lftI W tiIt tlittl llfdl tIit'
first learned that William n BOggs was
defauIter, after the latter had taken his
fight, and the books OF the bank had
been examined; but he also testified to
The effect that his check dated May l3,
1876. for so, in favor Of F.. b. Cuthbert
Il Go. drawn on The First National Bank
of Dover ior the purchase OF a certain
amount ri the stock Of the Bay State Gas
Company, and which according to the
testimony, was paid by that bank on
May -, 1895. came back to Dover on
the eighteenth p nineteenth Of May.
Mr.. Boggs came over to my office one
afternoon and he says, Clark, you have
another Cuthbert check in OF $3.50 /
says, will, cannot pay it. ] have been
disappointed in collecting some money,
50 protest the check and return il. >"
The defendant iurther testified to the ef-
feet that the sum Of $500 included in
the bond for s., 600 executed by him
April 8, 1897, represented money bDr-
rOwed by the defendant from William
\. Boggs ''to use in various ways; pay
bills that it was money borrowed
from William \. Boggs to pay the in
dcbtedncss Of the defendant to different
people; that he, the defendant, wonld
sometimes pay this Indebtedness by Civ
ing them check on The Fist National
Lank Of Dover that he, the defendant,
never gave a check on any other bank !;
that William n. BDggs had said to him.
the defendant, time and time again
when would ask him for loan Of a
small amount, twenty-five dollars, i
haven't got the money if you will give
me "a check | will take care of it for
you ;" and that he, the defendant
knew that William y. Boggs was
then teller in The First National
Bank Of Dover. Is this or not
further corrobOration by the de-
fendant OF the testimony Of William \.
Boggs upon one Of the vital points in
this case. The testimony in this case is
vOlumIn1us and r-lates to many matters
Of varying Importance. You should en-
deavor t. distinguish between such cvi-
dence as relates to matters OF minor i'm
port and the evidence which bears more
directly upon the controlling facts in the
case. it is admitted that William n
Eoggs defauted to The First National
Bank ol Dover in the sun of Sl07, ,OOO
1t has been put in evidence by the de-
fendant that William y. Boggs has
pleaded guilty to an Indictment found
by the grand jury for this District charg-
ing him with unIawiully embezzling,
abstracting and wilfnily misapplying the
moneys, funds and credits of that bank
to the above mentioned amount. The
defendant has been indicted for aiding,
abetting and conspiring with William n.
Boggs to effect the unlawful abstraction
or wilfu misapplication Of portion of
that defalcation. You have the evidence
before you tending to show that the de-
fendant, Knowing that William n. Boggs
was teller OF The First National Bank Of
Dover, repeatedly drew checks, including
the checks Immediately in question,
upon it for the use, benefit and advan-
| tage Of the defendant with knowledge on
the part Of the defendant at the time OF
drawing such checks that there was
either no money or not sufficient money
to his credit in the bank to meet them.
While the defendant availed himself of
his right to testify, he has not stated,
nor has any other witness in the case
testified, that the defendant did at any
time make any inquiry Of the officials Of
| The First National Bank OF Dover as to
the fidelity and regularity OF William n.
Hoggs as teller, although it appears from
/ the defendants testimony that he has
personally known William n. Boggs for
good many Years and had gambed
/ with him William \ Rnp0s for sniup