The sun., 1898-12-17
alR|f 70 kEWEl d]RyI
Continued rron Page One.

euuent investigation ascertained to
mount to the above mentioned sum.
Irving d. Bogge, who was bookkeeper
the bank, testified TO the effect that its
ledger contained entries show.
ny balances due from time to time to
he defendant as one of it's depositors,
md also overdrafts by the defendant
rom time to time as q depositor, and
urther that he, Irving d. Boggs, had no
of the alleged fraudulent
,hecks drawn by the defendant upon the
oank until after the fight OF william N.
Boggs.
Irving D. Boggs further testified that
" whenever he received a deposit from any
depositor of the bank he did contem-
poraneously and truly enter in his own
the amount thereof in the
individual ledger to the credit OF the de-
positor, and further that when William
N. Boggs, rs teller, reported to him,
irving D. Boggs, the amount OF any de,
posit which he, William N. Boggs, had
received, he, Irving ID. Boggs would IN
like manner enter The amount thereof on
the individual ledger to the credit OF the
person 80 reported by William N. Boggs
to have made such deposit, and further
that the usual though not invariable
course was for him, Irving D. Boggs, to
correctly make entries in the individual
ledger directly from an inspection by
him OF the deposits or deposit slips. .
William N. Boggs testified to the effect
that whenever any deposit was made by
or on account OF the defendant, he either
correctly reported that amount to Irving
D. Boggs, the bookkeeper, for entry in
the individual ledger to the credit OF the
defendant, or, in case of the absence OF
Irving D. Boggs, truly and correctly
made such entries in the individual
ledger himself; and further, that with the
exception of three deposits specified by
him made by the defendant during the
period covered by the alleged fraudulent
checks, such entries were made in the
individual ledger contemporaneeusly
with the deposits.
The three deposits which were not
entered in the individual ledger con-
temporaneously with their receipt, were
as follows, as testified to by William N.
Boggs, and bv T. Edward Ross, the ex-
pert accountant, from the books. On
June 20, 1896, there was deposit OF
500, which was not credited to the de:
fendant's account in the individual
ledger until three days thereafter. On
July 23, 1896, there was deposit Of
81 ,3S6.5O, which was not credited to the
defendants account in the individual
ledger until two days thereafter. And
on December Z, 1896, there was deposit
of $lSS.S5, which was not credited to the
defendants account in the individual
ledger until four days thereafter
1t appears from the testimony of William
N. Boggs and Irving D. Boggs that not
taking into consideration the checks al
legged to have been fraudulently drawn
by the defendant upon the bank, the
entries in the individual ledger relating
to the defendants account were so car
ried on as to correctly show, with the
exception of the three deposits just men.
toned, the true condition of his account
as a depositor at all times within the
period above mentioned. These entries
are before you, not as independent evi
dence of themselves, but as proper fo,
your consideration in connection with
that testimony to show the amounts o.
the balances whether due from the de
fendant to the bank or from the bank tt
the defendant during the period covered
by the alleged fraudulent checks, aside
from the alleged fraudulent check trans
actions of the defendant
Before adverting to the evidence in the
case shall now bring to your attention
some elementary principles of law neces
sary for your guidance in determining
upon your verdict. The law presume
persons charged with crime are innocen
until they are proved by competent evi
dence to be guilty. This presumption i
evidence in favor of the defendant ant
stands as his sufficient protection unles
it has been overcome and removed b.
the evidence in the case, taken as
whole, proving his guilt beyond a rea
sonable doubt. To justify verdict c
guilty the evidence adduced in the cas-
as whole must be such as to exclud
every reasonable hypothesis but that {
the guilt of the defendant as charged i
one or more OF the counts in the indicl
ment remaining open for your consider
alton; and from this it, of course, follow
that if the jury find that all the evidenc
in the case, when taken together, is 9
compatible with the theory of innocenc
as with the theory OF guilt, there shoul
be an acquittal.
The commission OF a criminal offent
can be proved by circumstantial ev
dence, provided the circumstance
proved, together with all reasonable il
ferences drawn from them, are such
to leave no reasonal doubt in the mint
of the jury that the defendant is guilt
You are to take into consideration 8
: the evidence in this case, both direct ar
! circumstantial, together with all reaso
!. able inference to be drawn from tn
" evidence, in arriving at conclusio
!. A reasonable doubt is doubt based c
reason, and which is reasonable in vie
T. of all the evidence. 1t is not whir
= slcal, arbitrary or purely speculate
70 doubt, nor mere conjecture or guess.
e If after an impartial comparison al
) consideration of all the evidence you CT
candidly say that you are not satisfied
the defendants guilt, you have a reaso
n able doubt; but if, after such impart
/ comparison and consideration OF all t
e evidence you can truJhfully say that y
have fixed conviction of the defer
ants guilt, such as you would be will
4 to act upon in the more weighty and j
u portant matters relating to your o,
affairs, you have no reasonable dou
i n