The sun., 1898-06-18

being ordered to do 50 by the court, pro
duced a telegram OF May 18th, 1896
which passed between Cuthbert; & Co.
and Clark on May 18th, 1896, relative te
Bay State Gas.
E. ]. Faucet, manager OF the telegraph
office at Dover, also produced some tele.
grams signed by Thomas S. Clark and
addressed to William N. Boggs. The
kilograms were offered in evidence.
Neither Of the telegraph men would
produce the paper until the court issued
special order.
AFTERNOON PROCEEDINGS.
When court convened at 2 o'clock the
first witness called by Mr.. Vandegrift
was Walter E. Sexton OF Philadelphia,
representing the brokerage firm of +. 3
Cuthbert & Co.
"What margins had you been paid on
Bay State Gas stock by the defendant in
May"'
"He was obligated to the firm for l3(
shares, representing $4,000, including
commissions on which We had received
$500"
"What did this stock representa-
"About 81, $50"
$50 that if this stock had become
worthless he would have been compelled
to pay the difference between $500. 60 and
81, $50, would he not?'
"Yes, SIR"
elbow much was stock worth then?'
sit was quoted at $25."
elbow much did it depreciate?"
Mr.. Biggs objected to the question for
the reason that it was after the stock had
been transferred by Clark to William n.
Boggs.
Mr.. Vandegrift contended thai he had
the right to ask the question as it would
show that $500 represented in the two
checks of $3.50 each was total loss to the
bank.
Judge Bradford overruled the objec-
ton made by Mr.. Biggs. and the witness
stated that he could tell by calculating.
"Then tell the loyest point to which
the stock declined .......-... :.
Il can show what the stock sold at. "
"Was that $500 wiped out and lost by
the depreciation"'
con September 81, 1896, there was one
500 lot of Bay State Gas that sold at
Sl6."
"Would that wipe out the $50O%,
''It would show a loss. A portion of
this stock was bought at S25 and sold .at
SIG, a loss of nine points and represent
ing $3.50, not including the commission.
The other one 500 lot was bought at S3l
and was sold at SIG, which meant loss
of $720."
$50 that the real loss was $50 plus
S72O%'
eyes, sir"
"Was the $500 then total loss?'
at was"
"Did the stock purchased at $25 wire
ont the S500?' asked Mr.. Biggs.
"Yes, and more too," was the re-
sponse.
Mr.. Vandegrift then offered the books
in evidence as far as these two Clark
items of September q, 1896, was con-
cernel.
Mr. Biggs objected, he claiming that
the entire book should be admitted as it
was running account.
After constable argument between
counsel the court admitted the book in
the way Mr. Vandegrift had desired.
James Underwood OF Philadelphia was
the next witness who took the stand at
the request OF Mr. Nandegrlft. "Had
you any connection with the rice track
horse Brooklyn in ls94?'
eyes"
"Did you receive any checks from
Thomas S. Clarke
"Yes."
"What timer
"May and June of 1894"
"Mr. Underwood have you made
search for these checks?'
81 have"
"Did you find them"
"No."
"Have you any personal knowledge of
these checks and the amounts they call
ed for?'
For S,3, $66, $lO5, $l4O and 500"
"Were these checks paid?'
"Yes and another for 500 Was not
"Whose check was that?''
"Clark's.'
"Did you ever get it"'
NO"
"Why?"
"The check was protested
"Did yOn not sell the horse out Tor a
board bill?' asked Mr.. Biggs in cross
"Yes."
"What did he costP'
Mr.. Vandegrift objected to the ques-
ton and was sustained by the court.
"What banks were these checks pay
able On?"
"First National Bank of Dover"
"Are you sure of that"'
"Not positively but think So"
Mr.. Vandegrift then recalled Fl. A.
to the stand.
"Have you recovered any part of the
$1,000 bond which Mr.. Clark had as
signed to Mr.. Kenney, the latter to Mr.
BOggs and he to the bank?'
mo sir"
"HIave ynu recovered any part of the
S265 bond?'
"No, both are a complete loss /
Has the bank been reimbursed at all
'or any checks paid out for this de-
iendent?'
Mr.. Biggs objected to the question
md was sustained by Judge Bradford.
"Has tle bank recovered any of the
Continued ON Page Two.