The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1898-06-16
CLARK'S BOND
TO R. R. KENNEY
He Assigns 1t to Boggs and
the Latter to the First
National Bank to
Meet DefalCatiOn.

When the United States Court convened
yesterday afternoon William N. .Boggs
was called to the stand. He was ordered
to stand aside. Mr.. Richardson took the
stand to correct a statement made by him
yesterday. He did not mean to say that
Clark did not owe tho bank anything.
There are some notes not yot due and there
Is a 81, 900 bond assigned to boggs and by
Boggs to tho bank. The notes are for
about S400
Boggs took the stand and in answer to
the District Attorney said in looking at
the two checks ho saw them first when
they came into the bank. The one dated
May 9th was paid out of the funds of the
bank. Clark did not have sufficient mo-
ney to meet tho check. It was paid at the
request of Mr.. Clark. The check was paid
in order that Mr.. Clark might he able to
help pay tho defalcaton to the bank of
which Clark was cognizant.
Mr. Biggs obj scted to the testimony. He
felt that there should bea stop put to this
| kind Of evidence.
Here the witness ia branching out and
saying "a vast number Of checks" There
are only four checks in the indictment ag-
gregating $500 in all. 1t does seem that
| the District Attorney should introduce
evidence in regard to these four checks.
Tho court suggested that clean cut
question be put and then it will como be.
fore the court In tho proper way.
Mr. Vandogrirt. Your honor will remem.
ber have proven that the two checks
were collected from tho First National
bank. Did you on June 23, 1904 by nrsv.
ious understanding with Thomas $. G ark
pay check Of $3.50 out of the funds and
moneys of tho First National bank?
Mr. Biggs objected and began argument
to support his objection. Tho District At
torney replied on behalf uf the Govern
ment.
The court said that 1t was apparent to
tho court that this question was coming up
because such question WAS asked Bogas
on the prevou, case. Therefore the court
had considered the matter. cannot do
better than quote the leading case Of tho
country referringto this question namely.
Wood vs. the United States. Tho case of
Allis vs. the United States was quoted. al
so the case of Moore VS.. the United s ate'
The District Attorney withdrew the
question.
Boggs took the stand and deposed that
arrane neements bad been between Clark
and witness for the withdrawal Of money,
Checks wcro given by Clark and paid by
witness and he returned the same to
Clark. Letters and kilograms were given
at the same time. He had paid abou;
F), iUD OIL SIuTh lIGGhs uiu Nlictho VI
other people for his benefit.
He gave up the checks to Clark on April
9. 1897 and both went over them; interest
was charged and Clark agreed to pay
$1,000.
Clark then gave bond for $1,000 to
Richard R. Kenney. Suspicion would
then be avoided. The bond was assigned
bv Kennev to Boggs and by him to the
First National bank:
In answer to Mr. Biggs he denied that
he ever on large sums of money from
Clark or that he had ever said $500 Of
that sum was for u gambling debt. Tn"
two checks for $3.50 each arc not included
in the bond.
Mr. Biggs objec'c to the admission Of
the bond as evidence
The Court ruled the bond in as evidence
Boggs identified another bond. 1t was for
S265 for checks of Charles II. Butler for the
benefit of Thomas S Clark. We compared
the checks on that afternoon.
The checks were given by witness to
Clark and by Clark to Charles N. Butler
His bond was also drawn In favor of Rich
ard r.. Kenney. Konney assigned 1t to
witness and he to the bank.
TO Mr.. BiGgs witness denied that Clark
objected to signing tho bond. Butler
never refused to sign tho bond.