Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1899-03-30

| -op w 90 hGeI tSthLt lTuUhuGblOu III
Centre county, PENNSYLVANIA. Witness
could not answer readily, and as Mr..
Vandegrift objected court ad iourned.
The case was resumed Tuesday morn
ing.
District Attorney VANDERBILT and
counsel for the defence consumed much
TIME IN arguing the point raised by
Mr.. Higgins as to how far he might
make inquiry of witnesses on cross
examination concerning money realized
| from checks of the defendant. his object
being to ascertain for whose use they
were given. Mr.. Higgins commended
that II was very material for the de-
fence to ascertain for whose use money
was drawn on checks, as the indict-
ment alleges that the checks were for
| the use and benefit of his client;
asserting that the defence proposed to
| shoG that some Of the checks were not
for Cotter's use. Mr.. Higgins admitted
that some of the checks were for the
defendants use, but he did not know
they were paid with the banks money.
| The judge permitted Mr.. Higgins 10
go into details in his inquiry, where
upon Mr.. Higgins asked d. s. Mann,
witness for the government who was
on the stand Monday night, what the $40
check given him was for; whether it
Was not pay for drawing papers for q
Centre county, Pa, transaction in
| which W. G. Heinle was interested.
Witness said he had drawn such
papers, but did not know whether the
check was for that particular trans
action.
In reply to the Judge, Mr. Mann said
| he did not know w. N. Boggs in the
IN Cnt{ar 4l,<,,,
estate business.
Leon II. Fultz, q government wit
ness, was recalled and cross examined
by Mr.. Higgins. He said his trans
action with Gotter was the result of q
suit on mortgage on Forty ninth
street house, in Philadelphia.
| j. I. De Silver of Chester. Pa, who
had business affairs in Philadelphia,
identified u check for $3.50, dated
February Sth, 1896, drawn by Cotter
| in his favor. He said it represented
his commission in n real estate trans
action, a sale of land of State Senator
William 9. Heinle of Pennsylvania, in
Centre county. The check was put in
evidence.
| BoGGs ON THE STAND.
| William N. Boggs, the defaulting
teller, was the next witness called by
the government. In reply to Mr.. Van
degrift, he testified to the defalcation
and identified number of Cotter's
checks, which were handed to him.
| The checks, he said, were all paid by
him. Some were for Cotter's benefit;
| in some witness had an interest. They
were paid out of the funds of the bank
| and not out of Cotter's funds The
method was explained, Boggs saying
he paid the checks with money re-
ceived from other customers.
| Mr.. Vandegrift asked Boggs if Cotter
had an arrangement with him to nay
the checks, TO which Boggs replied
that it would take a long time to
| relate the whole circumstances. He
could not remember Just when he first
met Cotter, but thought they were
introduced by Thomas s. Clark in the
fall Of 1893. His first business with
Cotter, he said, was some race track
| operations.
Mr.. Higgins objected to Boggs pro.
ceeding on this line, but Mr.. Vande-
grift insisted that the whole story be
told. The court permitted the witness
to proceed.
Continuing Boggs said, the first
money transaction of which he kept u
record was in November, 1893, when
he cashed check for Cotter on the
Market Street National Bank of Phila-
delphia, for $40. Boggs identified a
paper handed to him as statement of
the running account between him and
Cotter, which both examined and ap-
proved at Boegs' house on May Sth,
1897. Boegs left Dover on May Goth
of that year. The paper was admitted
in evidence, the defence offering no
objection.
Boggs also identified batch of
letters as having been written by
Cotter to him. The letters, he said,
related to transactions between them,
checks paid out of the funds of the
First National Bank, &c. The letters
and papers dated back to November
9th. 1898. Mr.. Vandegrift offered the
documents in evidence, but Mr.
Higgins objected and they were
handed to him and his client for ex-
animation, but SO much time was re-
quired in tho examination that Mr..
Vandegrift Withdrew the offer for the
time being.
Boggs identified a letter dated July
9th, 1895, rs relating to check in
favor Of NJ; J. Kelley, for $40. drawn
by Cotter. The letter was offered in
evidence by Mr.. Vandegrift. The de-
fence offered no objection.
Boggs made similar Identification OF
a letter dated September l4th, 1896,
which, he said, related to check fol
S25, drawn in favor of John 1. Rankin.
: This letter also went in evidence.
Other letters in the same category were
as follows: Letter dated September
Goth, 1896, referring to checks for S6C
! and $40 of September Gath and 26th, in
favor of John /. Rankin; letter dated
October 10th, 1896, referring to check
for 1872 in favor of John L. Rankin
letter referring to two checks for S25
| each, drawn in favor of John |. Rankin
on July 7th and August 10th, 1896.
All Of the checks referred to above,
witness explained, were for the use and
benefit of William E. Cotter.
The following checks drawn by
! Cotter were for Boggs' benefit. In
favor OF j. T. De Silver, dated
February sth, 1896, for S43.50; in
, favor Of John |. Rankin, dated june
j 9th, 1896, for $50; in favor of ID. s.
, Mann, dated June 9th, 1896, for SO
in favor of L. Ii. Fultz, dated Sep.
. TENDER 23d, 1896, for 1924. AZ. Boggs
said he derived no benefit, as matter
, Of fact. All Of the checks were paio
D out of the funds Of the bank, Cottei
7 having no money there, and it was al
] lost to the bank. Cotter's name was
. on the ledger of the bank at the time,
y and III sense had an account there
r Nothing was charged to the account
t unless funds were provided legiti
s mately. On one or two occasions
| rottor cant remittanreS tn take III