The sun., 1898-12-17
alRf n kEINEY Jury
Continued From Page Two.'
II, disregarding what may seem
you natural and inherently truthful I

II, disregarding what may seem TO
you natural and inherently truthful y Z
timony given by him, you should ps 81
nit yourselves to l,e carried away by
fierce denuncia tions, by heated language
and by excited and unwarranted epi-
thets applied to him. On the contrary,
with measured and impartial delibera-
tion, like men who have a large interest
at stake, you should carefully, anxlously
and judicially scan and weigh the evil
dence OF William N. Boggs.
The law permits the defendant, at his
own request, to testify in his own be.
half, Tho defendant here has availed
ahimself Of this right. His testimony is
before you and you must determine how
far it is credible. The deep personal in
terest which he has in the result OF this
case should be considered by you in
weighing his evidence and in determin-
ing how far, or to what extent, II at all,
IL is worthy Of credit. In considering the
Fcredibility of or weight which you
should give to the testimony Of the de-
slendant, you should regard, among
6kher things, the inherent probability or
nprobability of his statements, his in
Sltipence or want of intelligence, his
OPPORTUNITIES for knowledge OF business
methods, and to what extent, ii any, he
mas been corroborated by other evidence
Va the case. You should especially look
2to the interest any witness who has tes-
B4iHed before you in this case has in its
!fesult. Where witness has a direct
Bpersonal interest in the result of case
Ethe temptation is strong to color, per-
Fivert or withhold the facts.
William N. Boggs, who became teller
1Of The First National Bank of Dover in
November, 1891, and continued until
May 20, 1897, testified, among other
sthings, to the effect that his defalcation
EAt that bank, which had originated, ac-
Wording to his testimony, in a transaction
with Thomas s. Clark, first became
Hknown to the defendant in the early part
EOf October, 1895; that at thattime his de-
Nfalcation was at least 10000; that he
told the defendant as his counsel at that
\ time the state of affairs as nearly as he
could; that the defendant said that be-
fore he could know how to advise the
! witness he would have to see just how
the matter stood, "if had anything to
! show for it, and on that occasion we did
20 into Details" the interview lasting at
least thee hours; that on that occasion
the defendant and William N. Boggs dis
cussed the Indebtedness OF several per-
sons to Boggs, including, among others,
Thomas s. Clark, William Z. Cotter and
Harry +. Ford; that the defendant in
formed William N. Boggs that he, the
defendant, saw no reason why all OF this
Indebtedness should not be turned into
cash with little pushing" that the
defendant advised him in relation to
certain matters connected with them;
that the defendant inquired at that time
what assets he had that could be utilized
or what means to resort to for the pay
ment of the defalcation; that the
defendant undertook to collect
certain claims that he, William
N. Boggs, had against Thomas s
Clark; that the defendant knew that his,
William N. Boggs' defalcation continued
to increase during all the time Gov
cred by the alleged fraudulent checks
that the defendant and the witness hao
an arrangement or understanding by
which checks of the defendant might be
jpaid out Of the funds OF the First Ma
4 tional Bank of Dover although the de
fendant should not have sufficient funds
to his credit at that time in that bank
to meet them; that the witness pursuant
, to such arrangement or understanding
did nav the several checks mentioned i1
the consolidated indictment, as it nov
stands, out of the moneys OF the bank
and not out OF any moneys that the de
feridant had on deposit at that bank
that the defendant was fully aware al
the time of such illegal transactions
that the defendant would ask the wit
ness how he was getting along; that thu
special thing that William n. Bogg
feared at the time OF the interview will
the defendant on October g, 1895
; and which caused him to seel
that interview was an examination
which he thought was to be made ON TIN
/ following day, and which ii made woult
result in the detection Of his defalcatiol
to the bank; that to use the language o
the witness, II told him 1.-THE defendant
of the difference between this examina
ton and others; that the others wer
simply routine examinations where the!
did not suspect an official, where no II
regularity had come to their attention
and that in this if they looked ia
enough, an investigation looking pur
posely to zee whether irregularity hat
resulted in the use of any Of the bank
funds, it was bound to be discovered
And we took up the question then Q
who the directors were, and we dis
cussed the probabilities of their dis
covering anything, and l remember dis
tinctly the question that was discusses
was my apprehension, due to my ncrv
GUS condition, and that as I had foole
them before l certainly could do
again, and that so far as investigation o.
the next day was concerned need nc
worry about that" that the witness ha
frequent conversations with the defend
ant from the time Of his confession OF hi
defalcation at the bank up TO May, 1896
and the defendant during all that tim
was fully acquainted with the continues
defalcation Of the witness; that thes
consultations with the defendant durin
the period last mentioned were not onl
in reference to the matters which tn
witness had first consulted the defendan
about, but his own checks which had t
be taken care OF specially, in which tn
defendant was much more directly inter
ested than in any of the prior onet
~ Lak ho vs,if