The sun. (Wilmington, Del.) 1897-19??, 1898-05-15

|
reward, and that he was solely actuated
by motives OF friendship for William n.
Boggs 1t appears from the evidence
| that the defendant is lawyer of seven
teen years standing and was during the
period or Il portion OF the period covered
by the alleged fraudulent checks Regis
ter of Wills for Kent county. 1t is for
you to say how lar it is probable, under
these circumstances, that the defendant
should have taken such an active part in
the tran sactions represented by the al
legged fraudulent checks unless he had an
individual personal interest in those
transactions. Did not the part he took
involve the consumption of much
OF his time and attention? There
are in evidence impression copies
OF thirteen kilograms sent by +. B..
Cuthbert- 4 Co. to the defendant, twelve
of which called for large sums of money
corresponding in amount with an equal
number OF the alleged fraudulent checks.
In addition to the foregoing kilograms
there are in evidence impression copies
OF numerous kilograms between the de-
fendant and William n. Boggs respect.
ing the transactions connected with
those checks
1t is probable that dsinterested friend
ship between the defendant aud William
n. Boggs can of itself account for the
action of the defendant? This is for
your determination. Why was it that
the defendant, who, according to his
testimony, had no pecuniary interest in
the transactions connected with the
alleged fraudulent checks, should have
drawn those checks upon The First
National Bank of Dover without money
to meet them, instead of drawing drafts
on William n. Boggs himself, PAYABLE
at that bank or elsewhere in Dover? To
the solution of these questions you will,
OF course, apply common intelligence
and common sense. After the defend
ant became aware OF the fact that vii.
liam \. Boggs was defaulter he did
not inform on him, but, as he testified in
effect, after attempting to disuade Will
liam n. Boggs from leaving Dover, he,
tie defendant, took an interest in
facilitating his flight. What motive
actuated the defendant in this particu-
lar is for your determination | have
called your attention to what seems to me
be the more material portions of the de-
PENDANTS testimony, and it is for Won ia
pass upon the credibilty of that testi-
mony. A number Of witnesses testified
on behalf of the defendant to the effect
that prior to and during the period
covered by the alleged fraudulent checks.
William \. Boges was generally reputed
IN Dover to be a man of considerable
means and aole to command at any tine
the sum OF from $50, 600 or S25 600 to
$50, 600. On the ocher hand Il number
OF witnesses on behalf of the govern
ment, residing in Dover, testified to the
effect that they had no knowledge of any
such reputation on the part of William
n. Boggs, and state that his available
means were as they understood pretty
much confined to the salary he received
as teller OF The First National Bank of
Dover. You will doubtless recall the
testimony on this point.
Aside from other evidence in the case.
the testimony Of William n Boggs is in
direct antagonism to the testimony of
the defendant upon vital points in the
case. William n. Boggs as pleaded
guilty to the charge OF unlawfully en-
bezzIing abstracting and misapplying
the moneys, funds and credits of The
First National Bank of Dover. In this
case he has testified in the character of
an accomplish. While the testimony of
an accomplice should always be received
with caution and weighed and scrutin-
lied with great care by the jury, the
accompice is nevertheless competent
witness. The degree of credit which
should be given to the testimony of an
accompllce is matter exclusively with.
in the province Of the jury. While the
jury as a matter OF law may convict a
person accused of a grave crime upon the
uncorroborated testimony of an accom-
pIlce, it is however usual for the court
to advise the jury against a conviction
unless the testimony of the accomplice
has been corroborated by competent evil
i dence III some material part or parts.
The confederation need not extend to all
matters testified to the accomplice. but,
it being shown that the accolnpice has
testified truly on some particulars. it
may be inferred by the jury that he has
III others. In this case you are to deter.
mine, upon the evidence, whether vii.
liam N. Boggs has not been corroborated
with respect to material parts of his tes-
tlmony by the documentary evidence
and the testimony of other witnts es,
1t is also true, gentlemen that while the
court is careful to remind you that the
credit of William n. Boggs is entirely for
your consideration, it would be very far
from your duty if, disregardiDg what
may seem to you the natural and inner.
emily truthful character of his testimony
you should permit yourselves to be car
ried away by fierce denunciations, by
heated language, and by excited and
warranted epithets applied to him. On
the contrary. with measured ard impair
tai dcliberation like men who have a
large interest at stake you should care
fully, anxious,y and judicially scan and
weigh the evidence of William N. Boggs.
William N. Boggs has testified as to
the initial cause Of his defalcation, which
in the end reached the sum of $lO7 900.
That testimony is 50 recent as to render
any recapitulation OF it unnecessary. He
further testified that he embarked with
the defendant and others in a course of
stock speculations. There is in evidence
an impression copy of telegram from
the defendant to William n. Boggs.
dated Philadelphia, 1l.3O a. H., MAY 8,
1896, only two days after the first of the
alleged fraudulent checks was given by
the defendant to i. B. Cuthbert & Com
pany. In that telegram the defendant
stn tIlSs. Iln, Stptn L