Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-04-06

u.
Witness said he told Cotter repeatedly
not to draw certain checks.
Concerning the conference between
'Boggs and Cotter at the formers resi-
dence on May 8th, 1897, Boggs said he
told Cotter that he might leave on
Monday and that Il. t. Cooper was to
60 up the road on Monday to see if the
bank examiner was coming. He also
SAID that Cooper went UP the road and
telegraphed Boggs what he had learned.
The telegram was addressed to Nv.
johnson, Dover, Del" q name Boggs
sometimes used, and was to the effect
that Bank Examiner Buck would not
be in Dover for some time.
Mr. Vandegrift was handicapped to
q certain extent in offering this evil
dence. Tho telegram, he said, was in
evidences in the Cooper case, and he
found it again on Saturday to offer
today and had given it to his assistant,
Robert Pennington, but the latter was
taken sick during the noon recess and
he (Mr. Vandegriftl was unable to find
the telegram or locate Mr.. Pennington,
and for that reason asked leave to offer
secondary evidence, being unable to
find the telegram and the operator who
received it, Edward J. Faucet of
Dover, being present. Mr.. Vanuegrift
handed copy Of the telegram to Boegs,
who examined it and said the contents
were substantially what had been in
the original telegram.
Boggs, in reply to Mr.. Higgins, said
he told Cotter, on May Sth, 1897, that
he was short in his accounts. that the
bank examiner might be in Dover on
Monday and there was great probability
of him leaving Dover on that day. He
told Cotter he was not going to leave
unless he had to; but that he had
arranged to have e. L. Cooper go up
the road on Monday, locate Examiner
Buck and wire him (Boggsl.
Mr.. Higgins asked the witness il he
had not told William Anderson, shortly
after Cotter had testified in the case
against L. cooper, that If Cotter
had kept out OF the Cooper case there
would have been no charges against
him. Witness deuied that he made
any such statement.
In reply to Mr.. Vandegrift, Boggs
said he never told Cotter the method
employed in cashing his checks. He
told Cotter that the books of the banks
showed good, and, so far as he (Boggsj
knew nothing could be traced to Cotter.
OPERATOR FAUcETT ON THE STAND.
Edward J. Faucet, manager of the
Western Union telegraph office at
Dover, identified the telegram from +.
I. Cooper concerning Bank Examiner
Buck, a copy appearing in the testi-
mony in the Cooper case. Faucet read
the telegram. which was as follows.
Wilmington, Del, May 10, 1897.
W. johnson, Dover, Dol. Not for some
time. he says. [Signedl c."
Mr.. Faucet said he had the telegram
delivered to Boggs because Boggs had
told him that II any kilograms came to
Dover addressed to wv. Johnson" they
were to be delivered to him.
Cotter was recalled and denied that
he knew anything about Boegs' ex-
pectation to leave Dover on Monday,
May 10th, 1897, or any alleged arrange
ment with Cooper to locate Bank Ex-
aminer Buck.
With this both sides closed and Dis.
trict Attorney Vandegrift offered to
submit the case without argument, but
Mr., Higgins objected.
MIX. vANDEGRIFT ADDRESSES THE JURY.
Mr.. Vandegrft opened before the
Jury at O'Clock and spoke for an hour.
He reviewed the evidence, and calling
attention to the fact that much of the
evidence is documentary, asked the
jurors to read it and told them that
after doing so they would be satisfied
that Boggs and Cotter were scheming
to rob the bank. He asked, however.
that if there be any doubt, the accused
be given the benefit of such doubts and
set free, saying nobody would be more
pleased than he, except Cotter and
possibly his counsel, to see Cotter given
clean bill Of health by the jury. He
said he felt, however, that there was
no doubt about the defendants guilt.
The counsel for the defence will read
some Of the letters to the Jury, MIR.
Vandegrift said, and say that they
showed no evidence of a scheme to rob
the bank, but showed that the defend
ant was simply borrowing money from
Boggs and not from the bank. Mr..
Vandegrift said it was absurd to think
that Cotter. who had checks cashed by
the bank when he had no funds there,
believed he was doing right. Boggs
has made grave errors, but he has come
back to make reparation and is telling
the truth, let the consequences be what
they may. II Cotter thought he was
borrowing from Boggs he should have
drafted directly on Boggs. Cotter had
said drawing checks was the regular
way, but Immediately receded from
that statement and said it was the
easiest way TO get the money, Mr..
Vandegrft asked the Jurors to reason
among themselves as to whether they
would give checks on a bank where
they had no money, by an arrangement
with man who was known to be q
gambler. The word ''loan" is used in
some of the letters, but both of the
men would have been fools to come out
plain and say in the letters that the
bank was being robbed. Referring tc
the letters, Mr.. Vandegrift said the
two men were in hole together and
the wording of some of the letters
showed that they were making an effort
to extricate themselves. In only one
instance was check drawn in Boggs
name, although he was represented tc
be the large operator in real estate.
That was enough to excite suspicion.
What was the purpose on one occasion
in telling Boggs to carry check in hi:
pocket? There was not a sign of honest
business in the transactions.
Mr.. Vandegrift said the evidence
showed that the Centre county lane
was practically of no value, except tc
throw into the scales and make some
thing else 60, being thrown in with
other property to make people believe
they were getting a great deal fol
their money. Cotter did not get all oi
the checks he wanted out of Boegs
Boegs kept some grip on the thing oil
it would have been exploded a veal
before il was. 1t is in evidence tina
when Cotter turned over money tc