The sun., 1898-06-25
THOMAS s. CLARK CONVICTED
Continued From Page One.

ledger, was foity-six cents. At and i'm
before the payment out OF tie
funds Of The First National Bank OF
Dover. of the check drawn by the de
fendant upon that bank for so and paid
February II. 1896, as testified to, the
balance due from tie bank to the de-
iendant, az appears from the individual
ledger, was fftee: dollars and sixty nine
cents. At and Immediately before the
payment ont Of the funds Of The First
National Bank OF Dover Of the check
drawn by the defendant upon that bank
for so and paid November 70, 1896, az
testified to, the balance due from the
defendant, as appears from the indiyid-
ual ledger, was thiry-iiye cents.
William n. Bozgs has pleaded gnityto
the charge Of lnilawfllIy embezzling,
abstracting and misappiying the moneys,
funds and credits Of The First National
Bank Of Dover. In this case he has tes-
tilted in the character OF an accOmDlice.
While the testimony of an acconplice
should always be received with caution
and weighed and scrutnized with great
care by the jury, the accomplice ls never
tneless a competent witness. The de-
gree OF credit which should be given 70
the testimony OF an accomplice is a
matter exclusively within the province
Of the jury. While the jury a. matter
OF law may convict person accused OF
grave crime upon the uncorObOrated
testimony Of an accOmplice, it IL, how
ever, usual for the court to advise the
jury against a conviction unless the testi
mony Of the accomplice has been cOrrob-
Grated by competent evidence IN some
material part or parts. The cOrrobOra-
ton need not extend to all matters testi-
fed to by the accOmplice, but it being
shown that the accompllce has testified
truly in some particulars, 1t may be in
ferred by the jury that he ha- in others.
In this case you are t. determine, upon
the evidence, whether William y. BDggs
has or has not been cDrrpborated with
respect to material parts Of biz testimony
by the documentary evidence and tie
testimony Ci other witnesses, and YOU
are also to determine whether or not
William y. BDgg- has been successfully
cDntradicted with respect to any materia!
position Of his testimony. 1t l- also
true, gentlemen, that While the cont Il
carcfnI to remind you that .he credit pf
william y. Boggs il entirely for ypnr
consideration, it would be very far from
your duty il, disregarding what may
seem to yOn the natural and inherently
truthful character Of his testimony, yOu
should permit yourselves to bc carried
away by denunciatlOn-, or By warranted
epithcts applied TO him. On the con-
trary, with measured and impartial de-
liberation, Ike men who have large in
terest at stake, you should carefully,
anxiousIy and jndcialy scan and weigh
the evidence Of William \. Bpggs.
The law permits the defendant, at his
own request, to testify in Ils nwn be-
half. The defendant here has ayaied
himself oi this right. His testimony j.
before yol and you must determine how
far it il credible" The deep personal in
trTc-t which he has in he result Ui this
case should be considered by YOU in
weighing his evidence and in determine
ing how far or 10 what extent, il at all, i
il worthy Of credit In considering the
cr"diDIlty of or weight which yUn should
give 10 the testimony Of the defendant,
YOU should regard, among other things,
the Inherent probability or improbable
ity Ot lIs Fl .tcmcnts, his intelligence or
want Ol intelligence, his opportunities
for knpwIcdg" Of business methods, and
TO what extent, il any, he has been cor
rOborated by other evidence IN the case.
A number Of reputable witnesses whose
testimony has not been iunpcachcd, con-
tradlctcd or discrcdilcd in any manner,
have testified that the reputation OF the
defendant for trnth and vcracitv in the
community in which he resides is bad.
THIS testimony IL before You for your
consideration in connection with the
other evidence in thr case. The defend
ant Las not produced any witnesses to
testify that his reputation for truth and
rgacty in the IcIghbOrhpnd in which
he resides Is good may add, generally,
that You should especially look TO the
interest any witness, who has testified
before you in this case, has in its result.
Where a witness has a direct personal in
tcrcst IN the result Of a case the leinpta-
'l"n II strong to color, pcrvcrt or with.
hold the facts.
All ui III" witnesses v no have test fled
on behalf Of the defendant, with the cX-
c"ption Of jefferson J.. Ford and ArIcv
Il. Magcr, who was Il law student Of
Richard L. kcnncy at the time to which
his testimony relates, are now under in
dIclrn"nt by the grand jury for this Dis
trlct for completely with William \.
io2ls in the dclalcatlon OF :lO7OOO.
William \. lioggs tcrtiticd to he effect
that III tn" latter part Of lSD2 or in lSD,
for the first time he irauduIcntIy alb
Etracl"d or lusappird the funds Of The
First National Bank Of Dover by the
payment Oi Il check ont Of such funds
drawn by lh" dci"ndan, upon hat bank
when the defendant had not the money
thci" to- hi credit to meet such check:
upon an assurance from the defendant
that hr the defendant, would shortly
d"ppsIt IN the bank enough money to
cover the shortage created by such pay
n"hlj bat irOm time 10 time thereafter
h", VI nam y, Eogg-, at the request Of
the defendant, paId numerous checks
drawn Nv IN" defendant ON The First
NatIollaI Bank " Dover uuI ui it, funds,
when tI" defendant had either II, money
or not sufficient money to his credit in
the bank to Iucr such chrcks; that i,
Wa understood between the Defendant
and him. William =. Euggs, that slciI
checks should br drawn by the dcirnd-
ant and paid Out IT the funds OF the
banI, toy William \. Euyg-, for the use.
benefit and advantage Oi Me defendant,
and that such checks SiIDull not bp
charged toINr account OF the defendant
in the bank; II,at the defendant treated
/ tY,,,...,