The sun., 1898-06-25

as depositor at all times within the
period extending from September, 1898,
until after the flight of William N. Boggs?
Aside from the testimony of William n.
Boggs and Irving ID. Boggs corroborative
OF the balances and overdrafts in the de-
fendant's account as shown in the individ.
ual ledger there are other circumstances
which you will doubtless consider in this
connection: Irving d. Boggs testified
that the defendants deposit book was
balanced or settled April "a, 1894, show
ing balance neither way, March IS,
1895, showing a balance to the credit of
the defendant of $5.20, July ~, 1895,
showing balance to the credit of the
defendant of $ll.55, October IA, 1895,
showing balance neither way, April 6.
1897, showing a balance to the credit of
the defendant of 81 81, and April 26, 1897,
showing balance to the credit of the
defendant of SO cents. The defendant
availed himself Of his right to testify as
witness in his own behalf, and after
hearing the testimony Of William N.
Boggs and Irving d. Boggs, in relation to
count in the individual ledger, aside
from any alleged fraudulent checks
drawn by the defendant upon the bank,
and also after. hearing the testimony OF
Irving D. Boggs as to the settle
ment of the defendants deposit
book or books and the amount
due from the bank to the defendan. Il,
the respective d:tes of such settleme",~.
wholly omitted to testify that his deposit
book or deposit books covering the per-
iod of such settlement had been lost or
destroyed, or to question in any manner
the accuracy OF his account as shown in
the individual ledger or his account as
disclosed in the settlement of his deposit
book or books; nor is there any evidence
in the case that OH any occasion the de-
fendant made complaint to any of the
officers of the bank of the existence of
any mistake or inaccuracy either in his
account as shown by the individual led
ger or in his deposit book or books set
tied from time to time, above referred to.
1t appears from the evidence that Il. b.
Cuthbert & Co. were stockholders having
their main office in New York and a
branch office in Philadelphia. There is
voluminous evidence in the case, both
oral and documentary, which you will
doubtless recall, but which cannot un-
1ertake to recaptulate now, to the effect
that on May 8, 1885, the firm of E. B.
Cuthbert & Co. at their Philadelphia Of
fee received cheek bearing date May s,
1876, drawn by the defendant in favor OF
+. b. Cuthbert 4 Co., on The First Ma
tional Bank of Dover, for $3.50, to cover
a margin or part of the purchase money
OF a certain amount Of the stock of the
Bay State Gas Company; that this check
vas on the same day deposited in the
Philadelphia National Bank to be for
warded to its destination; that in due
course Of business the same check was
duly transmitted to the Farmers Bank at
Dover; and that, the latter bank having
presented it to The First National Bank
of Dover for payment, 1t was paid ont Of
the funds Of The First National Bank of
Dover on Or about May u, 1896.
There is also evidence in the case, both
oral and documentary, to the effect that
on May II, 1896, the firm Of f. 3. Cuth-
bert 4 Go. at their Philadelphia office
received check bearing date May l3,
1896, drawn by the defendant in favor of
f. B. Cuthbert d Co. on The First
National Bank OF Dover, for $3.50 to
cover margin or part OF the purchase
money of a certain further amount of
stock of the Bav State Gas Company;
that this check was forwarded on May
II, 1896, to the New York Office of +. B.
Cuthbert 4 Co.; that on the next follow
ing day this check was deposited by +.
B. Cuthbcrt & Co. IN New York in the
| r1 Nnti nj rf hat ,it t,,
be forwarded to its destination; that on
the same day this check was transmitted
in due course of business to the Corn
Exchange National Bank of Philadel-
phia; and thence transmitted on May
rs, 1896, to the Citizens National Bank
OF Middletown, Delaware, and thence on
May Is, 1896, was transmitted to the
Farmers Bank at Dover, and that the
last named bank presented tie same ON
May 10, 1896, to The First National
Bank Of Dover for payment and that on
the same day the check was paid out of
the funds of The First National Bank OF
Dover There is also evidence in the
case, both oral and documentary, to the
effect that on February 10, 1896. check
drawn by the defendant on The First
National Bank of Dover for the sum OF
$50, the check not having been produced
and the name of the payee not appearing
in the evidence, was tr, .snitted by the
National Bank of Delaware, at Winning
ton, to the Farmers Bank at Dover, and
ON February II, 1896, presented by
he Farmers Bank at Dover to The
First National Bank of Dover for
payment, and it was paid out of the
funds of The First National Bank of
Dover on the SANE day. There is also
evidence in the case, both oral and docu-
npntary, to the effect that on November
30. 1896, a check drawn by the defendant
IN The First National Bank Of Dover for
the sum nf $50, the check not having
been produced and the name OF the payee
not appearing in the evidence, was trans
mitted by the Philadelphia National
Bank at Philadelphia 10 the Farmers
Bank at Dover, and on November 30,
1896, was presented by thu last named
bank to The First National Bank of
D wrr for payment and was paid out of
the funds of The First National Bank of
Dover. The tour checks last ahove mem
TONED are the only checks specified in
the Indictment as it now stands which
are alleged to have been paid within the
period Of three years next before the
finding OF the Indictment. The guilt or
innocence OF the defendant mainly de-
pends upon the intent or purpose with
which he drew and secured The payment
of these alleged checks At and imme,
diate,y before the pavmei [ out of the