The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1899-04-05
THE CHARGE
TO THE JURY.
The COtter Case is Now in
the Hands OF the
Jury.

TINS morning Judge BrndfOru began MS
charge to the jury In tho Co,ter case. After
review of the sections under which Cot
ter was tried and Of the six counts In tho
encs to the counts.
The law Dresumes persons charged with
crime to DO Innocent until proven by evil.
dence to be guilty To justify verdict OF
guilty the evidence must be such rs to ex-
clude every reasonable doubt and II upon
examination Of the evidence 1t Is such
that 1t Is as complete for tho ono side rs
for the o,har then you should return u
verdict Of not guilty.
II after I'M examination Of the evidence
you have no reasonable doubt then yon
should rendor verdict Of guilty. Bog .
was teller of the First National bank ana
distracted s107, 900 of tho funds Of that in-
stltution. All the alleged fraudulent
checks have been admitted to ba true and
wero paid ont of tho bank by BOgRs when
the defendant did not havo funds ut that
bunk to meet snid checks.
The court renewed the checks given In
this manner. These checks were never
paid TO the count of the defendant and tho
amounts thereof were lost to the bank.
The court has allowed other checks not
mentioned in tho Indictment and were
paid out Of the funds OF the bank. They
were allowed 10 show the Intent
" You are Instructed that you cannot
find verdict Of guilty against this defend
ant upon any check not set forth In this
indictment If you believe that this do
PENDANT believed the checks were pnid out
II Bnggs's own morey or by the defend
ANTS money then you cannot find him
guilty.
A bank may allow an account to be over
drawn for n depositor's accommodation
lnt bH ha nj hit In nru<y phnDEg
on bank without the knowledge of tho
proper officers when his account Is not
ab'o to satisfy the checks.
You are to determine in this case wheth
or Bogg,' testimony hns been supported
by documentary evidence or whether 1t
has been successfully contradicted. The
deep personal interest the defendant has
III this case should 10 considered In weigh
lnI his evidence
You should especially look to the owl
dcnce of any witnes, in this case who has
q material interest In it because such evil
lHnce would DO likely to DO colorcd or per-
verted All tho documentary evidence Is
for your Inspection In the jury room and
therefore in this charge Ia considered I'M
necessary and too tedious.
II after Cunsi 'rrnG 81 the evidence In
tho clee YOU nave Il reason ible doubt lin
yJur N Is yuL s"OaIA u.luit this defen-
dnnt On the luther land II you have no
reasonable doubt In your minds after tho
Q nsiherntion OF this testimony then you
should find Il 70 dic5 OF gully. A roview
followed tho meeting Of Bogg, md Ccttcr
the statement of tho former to the latter
that no was a dcfauiter and the payment
O the checks.
TIC defendant had no credit at the
bank and Cashier Batcman ordered his
account closed out. On May s. 0, 1897 tho
deendcnt me Boggs andwas shown his in
debt edresi on Government exhibit No 49,
They were excited because the bank cx.
amiaer was expected Oh tho following
Monday.
TIC te,tiuonv OF tho defendant was
then reviewed 1t WAS llat contradc ion
IN several instance; to tho evidence given
by Boggs. The defendant claimed ho
n6ver knew nor thought for moment
that Boggs vas short at the bank or that
no hid been mlsapplyinS tho funds SO
Withdrawn by Bpggs.
llOne Of the main questions in tho casols
Did tho defendant have knowledge of
Riggs and performed some act to aid ana
t HnggS 10 abstract and wil(ully mi'ai-
wy tho iunds of the bank You must
consider the intent the defendant had
when Eo gave these checks.
An intent 20 injure or uefraud Il nation
al bank does not mean malice. 1t is SUI
tlcienJ that the in'ereet Of deFraudinR the
bank is carried out. The evidence shows
that some OF the checks wcro drawn by
the defendant for hi, own use and others
for tho use and benefit of Boggs,
If you find that there was al arrange
meut betw cen Bo2giand defendant and
prof 8 derived should b, used to pay tho
Indebtedness of tho defendant to tho bank,
then it was an unlawful misapplicution Of
In fin, p hr hnp1- vbat Iap Il
ton was carried on either in the namo Of
defendant or William N Boggs.
1t Is wholly unimportant whether n
separate arrangement han been made or
whether Bn29s explained In detail pro-
videi the defendant knew Boggs AL
raced wrcngfully he funds OF the bank.
Having had passbooi at the bank why
was it that tho defendant did not demand
Its return from Hoggs Or some other on
Ger of the bank?
Since he gave his passbook to Boggs in
1874 tho defendant has never used It In
connection with his account at tho bank.
With other people with whom he had real
estate transactions tire defendant did not
have any such nrIangemet.
Why did tho defendant arrange with
BogsI to give his checks when no had no
account at the bank IF the defendants
testimony IA reliable why did he give his
checks Tor Bosgs use when DEFENDANT be-
II we'd TINT Bogss was man OF money!
these ARE qlos Ions for you to decide.
You will gentlemen In deciding the
questions In this case use general common
sense Your verdict should not DO de-
:iled upon the probability or improbable
lty Of any one single point You are to
fully understand that you arc tho solo
judges Of tho Witnesses and evidence.
Tho guilt or Innocence OF this defendant
is to DO decided upon by you and your vcr-
dict should represent tile views Of each
juror Unanimity through comparison
in the jury room Is the object of the jury
system.
II upon all the evidence in tho case YOU
arc not satisfied beyond u reasonable
doubt then you should find u verdict of
guilty. You can find verdict of gully
upon one or more of Tho counts in tho in-
tlictncnt. The builiIf was sworn and tho
Jury retired to the jury room at LOB pm.
Republican City Committee.
Vhpra will In n meet ne OF the RpDnhli-