Newspaper Page Text
Continued From Page Two. to if, disregarding what may seem you natural and inherently truthful |r> timony given by him, you should pA 1 mil youraelyes to lie carried awaytiy fierce denunciations, by heated language and by excited and unwarranted epi » thets applied to him. On the contrary, ■ with measured and impartial delibera tion, like men who have a large interest at stake, you should carefully, anxiously and judicially scan and weigh the evi dence of William N. Boggs. Tlie law permits the defendant, at his own request, to testify in his own be half. Tlie defendant here has availed himself of this right. His testimony is before you and you must determine how tar it is credible. The deep personal in terest which he has in tlie result of this case should be considered by you in ^weighing his evidence and in determin ing how far, or to what extent, if at all, it is worthy of credit. In considering the credibility of or weight which you should give to the testimony of the de fendant, you should regard, among filer things, the inherent probability or ■probability of his statements, his in ■figence or want of intelligence, his Kportunities for knowledge of business Baetbods, and to what extent, if any, he mas been corroborated by other evidence Inthe case. You should especially look t (o the interest any witness who has tes tified before you in this case has in its Result. Where a witness has a direct nersonal interest in tlie result of a case 'the temptation is strong to color, per : vert or withhold the facts. William N. Boggs, who became teller of The First National Bank of Dover in November, 1891, and continued until May 29, 1897, testified, among other Ahings, to tlie effect that his defalcation »t that bank, which bad originated, ac jeording to his testimony, in a transaction Thomas S. Clark, first became ( known to the defendant in the early part hf October, 1895; that at that time his de jalcation was at least $20,000; that he told the defendant as his counsel at that time the state of affairs as nearly as lie could; that the defendant said that be fore he could know how to advise the witness lie would have to see just how the matter stood, "if I had anything to show for it, and on that occasion we did go into details," the interview lasting at leaet three hours; that on that occasion the defendant and William N. Boggs dis cussed the indebtedness of several per sons to Boggs, including, among others, Thomas S. Clark, William E. Cotter and : Harry F. Ford; that the defendant in formed William N. Boggs that he, the defendant, saw no reason why all of this indebtedness should not be turned into cash "with a little pushing;" that the defendant advised him in relation to certain matters connected with them; that the defendant inquired at that time what assets he had that could be utilized or what means to resort to for the pay ment of th<5 defalcation; that the defendant undertook to collect certain claimB that be, William N. Boggs, had against Thomas S. Clark; that the defendant knew that his, William N. Boggs' defalcation continued to increase during ail tire lime cov ered by the alleged fraudulent checks; that tlie defendant and tlie witness had arrangement or understanding by which checks of the defendant might be / paid out of the funds of the First Na tional Bank of Dover although the de fendant should not have sufficient funds to his credit at that time in that bank to meet them; that the witness pursuant to such arrangement or understanding did pay tlie several checks mentioned in the consolidated indictment, as it now stands, out of the moneys of the bank and not out of any moneys that the de fendant had on deposit at that bank; that the defendant was fully aware at the time of sucli illegal transactions; that tlie defendant would ask tlie wit ness how lie was getting along; that the special thing that William N. Boggs feared at the time of the interview with the defendant on October 6, 1895, and which caused him to seek that interview was an examination; which, he thought was to be made cm the following day, and whicli if made would result in the detection of his defalcation to the batik; that to use tlie language of the witness, "I told him (thedefemdant) of the difference between tiiis examina tion and others; that the others were simply routine examinations where they did not suspect an official, where no ir regularity had and that in this if they looked far enough, an investigation looking pur posely to see whether irregularity bad resulted in tlie use of any of the bank's funds, it was bound to he discovered. And we took up the question then of who the directors were, and we dis cussed the probabilities of their dis covering anything, and I remember dis tinctly the question that was discussed was my apprehension, due to my nerv ous condition, and that as 1 had fooled them before I certainly could do it again, and that so far as investigation on the next day was concerned I need not worry about that;" that the witness had frequent conversations with the defend ant from tlie lime of his confession of his defalcation at the bank up to May, 1896, and the defendant during all that time fully acquainted with the continued defalcation of the witness; that these consultations with the defendant during tbe period last mentioned were not only in reference to the matters which the witness had first consulted tlie defendant about, but his own checks which had to be taken care of specially, in which the defendant was much more directly inter ested than in any of tlie prior ones; that the defendant knew that the wit ness, was paying tlie defendant's checks out <Jf the moneys of the bank, and not out of any moneys that the defendant had on deposit at that bank; that the witness had frequent conversations with the defendant in relation to tlie payment of the defendant's checks out of the funds of the bank as just mentioned; that to use the language of the witness, "I have many times gone to see blm(the defendant) to tell him how much I was carrying then and the difficulty of carry ing it probably at some particular period, and that he must try to reduce it, and so on, conversations on that line with rela tion to it and the danger ef detection by the other officers, and so on;" that the witness carried for the defendant under the same agreement and understanding other checks of his besides those men tioned in this consolidated indictment; that to use the language of the witness, "Mr. Kenney was m difficulty, the Bay State not having panned out as he ex pected it to. It became necessary for him tt> use funds and the only place he thought at that time funds could be got was under this arrangement; 1 ' that the t ith an come to their attention, was ■' r' that b* lull check* on The ver, and that Cathbert A Co. had tot 15,000 of money froni him; all of which checks, according to the testimony of the witness, had been paid by the witness out of the funds of The First National Bank of Dover in thh wav already stated; that the checks drawn'by thA defendant to William Anderson mentioned in the consoii dated indictment, as it now stands, drawn and delivered by the defendant witli the understanding "that they should not be charged to his account, that he should not have ihero to pay;" that the bank did not know anything about that arrangement; that the defendant knew at the time of the giving of the Anderson checks that the witness was in default to The First National Bank of Dover; that during the time the witness was carrying the de fendant in the manner as above de scribed, with the moneys of The First National Bank of Dover, the defendant knew that he, William N. Boggs, was carrving others in like manner, includ ing Thomas 8. Clark, Harry F. Ford and William E. Cotter; that the witness since the time when it was expected that an examination of his accounts would oc cur in October, 1895, has discussed with the defendant prospective examinations of the books of The First National Bank of Dover, and called the attention of the defendant t* the condition of the de fendant's matters prior to such examine tion, telling him that "we were carrying so much stuff we must try to liquidate in some way, or get it in a different shape to bridge over the period;" that ' instance on the occasion of the approach of a prospective examination he handed in a draft which the witness succeeded in having credited in the de fendant's pass book and in the defend ant's account on the individual ledger of The First National Bank of Dover; that this was in the latter part of June, 1890; that this draft for $3,950 came back un paid on July 9, 1896; that the cashier waB astounded to see the draft come back after the witness had assured him that it was a good draft, that for the purpose of helping to pay the draft of $3,950, there was another draft of $1,033.18 deposited July 9, 1896, in The First National Bank of Dover which afterwards came back protested sometime early in August, 1896; that shortly after the return of the last mentioned draft protested another draft was deposited in The First National Bank of Dover, for the sum of $1,896.40, which draft also came back protested, August 15,1896, and was paid out of the funds of the bank and carried until about September 25, 1896. when it was charged to the defendant's account. The defendant testified, among other i tilings, to the effect that lie had known William N. Boggs since 1881, 1882 or 1883. about the time lie became clerk in The First National Bank of Dover; that the defendant became counsel for Wil liam N. Boggs in 1893 or 1894, and at the time of the confession by William N. Boggs of his defalcation did not know that William N. Boggs had any other counsel than him, the defendant; that the defendant was never intimate with William N. Boggs in a social way, neither of them ever visiting the house of the other; that the defendant first learned of the defalcation of William N. Boggs to Tlie First National Bank of Dover, in November, 1894, shortly after the general election; that at that time William N. Boggs came to the defend ant's house at night and told tire defend ant that he, William N. Boggs, was in trouble with the bank; that he, tlie de fendant, was astonished and horrified at tlie statement of William N. Boggs, and considered it a very serious matter; that tlie interview did not last more than ten or fifteen minutes; that lie, the defend ant, advised William N. Boggs to see his relations and friends and make tlie mat ter good before it gained publicity; that William N. Boggs did not mention tlie amount of hie defalcation nor tlie way in which it was consummated; that thede fendant did not ask William N. Boggs anything about tlie particulars of tlie de falcation; that he, tlie defendant, did not ask William N. Boggs what lie had to make good his defalcation, nor how he could make it good; that he, tlie defend ant got , rid of William N. Boggs as quickly as he could; that at this inter neither tlie name of Thomas S. Clark, or Ezekiel T. Cooper, or Harry F. Ford or any other person, was men tioned in connection with his,William N. Boggs' defalcation; that as time went on after the above mentioned interview the relations of tlie defendant with William N. Boggs grew more intimate in a busi ness rather than in a social way; that at no time after this interview did William N. Boggs make to the defendant any reference to the defalcation until about a week before his flight from Dover; that tlie defendant saw William N. Boggs almost dailv when the defendant was at home, and' never asked William N. Boggs whether he had Been his friends and relations and arranged this defalca tion, which William N. Boggs had cen feseedtothe defendant as above stated; that the defendant took no further inter est in the matter of such defalcation and never asked William N. Boggs anything about it; that in 1894, when, according to the testimony of the defendant, Wil liam N. Boggs confessed his defalcation to him, the defendant had no knowledge of William N. Bogg's resources; that in the fall of 1895 William N. Boggs spoke to the defendant about the troubles with the directors of''the bank because of his playing cards; that William N. Boggs told tlie defendant that he had satisfied the directors that he would quit playing cards, and that he had seen Mr. Massey, one of liis bondsmen, upon the subject, and Mr. Massey told him that he would forgive him for playing cards and gam bling if he were all right in hia accounts at the bank; that William N. Boggs told the defendant that he had satisfied Mr. Massey; that the defendant supposed that William N. Boggs had made good his defalcation to tlie bank, and that he was apparently in funds during 1895 and 1890; that lie, William N. Boggs, had exclusive of his salary as teller, amounting to $1,000 a year, aiid his no tarial fees, averaging about $480 a year, cash or other property amounting in the aggregate to $4,282.13; that on more than one occasion William N. Boggs told tlie defendant that he, William N. Boggs, was ahead of the game, that lie was a winner in his speculations and pard playing; that the defendant had no knowledge whatsoever of the holding out of iiis checks upon the bank as charged, and that there was no such un derstanding in relation to such holding out as tfas testified to by William K. Boggs; that he knew that at various times daring the period covered by the alleged Iraudulent checks that he had overdrawn his account in the bank, and had been called upon by the officers of ths bank to make certain checks goods, which he did; that the defendat had no m told the witness $5,000 worth «f inal Bank of Do it issued rat Natio were in one view 1-1 idea of ti« condition of hi* account a* testified to on the part of the Govern ment; that he relied entirely upon tbe bankto keapbiaaccouMithat wImiie. - it was necessary for the defendant to make a deposit or to cover bis accounts the official* of the bank always notified him, and at no time when notified that he had overdrawn or had a check and his funds were not sufficient to pay it that he did not promply get the money and make it good. Tbe defendant in Ins testimony fur thcr denies in effect any fraud on his part in connection with any of the checks set forth in the consolidated ln dictment as it now stands. The defend ant, however, further testified that he drew checks in the ordinary, course of his business without any question as to whether his account wonld be gpod at the time or not, and always relied on the bank to give him notice when any of his checks should cotne in if nis ac count was not sufficient to meet it. the defendant also .denies the statement made by William N. Boggs as to the dis cuBSion of the extradition laws, and his advising William N. Boggs to go to Cuba. ...... . Of course if yon should believe from the evidence that the defendant in gi v ing checks mentioned in the consoli dated indictment, as it now stands, for the use and benefit of William N. B or himself, honestly believed that liam N. Boggs, or himself, as the case might be, had ample means of his own to pay the same, and that the same were being paid by William N. Boggs out of his own money or the money of tlie de fendant as the case might be and not out of the moneys of the First National Bank of Dover, you could not convict the defendant witli respect to those check transactions, One of the main questions in the case, so far as it relates to the counts of con solidated indictment, part 1, is whether or not the defendant, with intent to in jure and defraud The Fjjret National Bank of Dover, wilfully, unlawfully and fraudulently, aided or abetted William' N. Boggs, the teller, wilfully and unlaw fully to misapply the moneys of that bank, for the use, benefit aad ad vantage of the defendant, or of William N. Boggs, as respecMvejy charged in those counts; lie, William N. Boggs, having in making such plication a like intent, and the defendant knowing that William N. Boggs was teller. You must be satisfied, in order to find a verdict of guilty on these counts, that the defendant had knowledge of the in tention of William N. Boggs bo t« nns apply the moneys of The First National Bank of Dover, and that the defendant i did some act or acts for the purpose of aiding or abetting William N. Boggs making such misapplication. If the other ingredients of the crime existed, the aiding or abetting could be accomplished through the instrumental ity of a check or checks drawn upon The First National Bank of 'Dover which either caused or facilitated the prohibited misapplication of the tends. Under the counts now leinaining in console dated indictment, part 1, all of which charge the defendant with aiding or abetting William N. Boggs wilfully, un lawfully and fraudulently to misapply the moneys of Tne First National Bank of Dover, the drawing of a fraudulent check by tlie defendant and his procur ing it to be paid by William N. Boggs, the teller, out of the funds of the bans in manner as alleged in such counts, constitutes an act of aiding or abetting within the meaning of the law. Much lias been said on the subject of overdrafts and the circumstances under which they are or are not criminal under Section 5,209 of the United States revised statutes. A man may overdraw his ac count in a bank and be innocent of any evil nr unlawful purpose. Overdrafts are not uncommon in bank transactions. A bank may desire to accomodate tetn porarily a depositor, and if a depositor knowingly makes an overdraft, his re lations with the bank or its officials may be such as to prevent the taint of crimi nality from attaching to the transaction, But no man who is without a balance to his credit in a bank, or who has only an insufficient balance, has a right to draw checks for considerable amounts, with out the knowledge or consent of the proper officials, and witli a fraudulent intent that tlie moneys of the bank in which he has no funds or not sufficient funds to his credit, should be applied to the payment o' those checks, The defendant cannot be convicted under consolidated indictment, part 1, as it now stands, unless he had a wrongful or illegal intent to injure or defraud the bank in drawing the fraudulent checks therein alleged, or some one or more of them set forth in consolidated indict ment, part 1, as it now stands. Whether or not he had that intent is to be de termined by the facts and circumstances and the surroundings at the time he drew those checks. If he knew or had good reason to believe when he drew the checks set forth in consolidated indict ment, part 1, as it now stands, that they or any of them were to be fraudulently paid by William N. Boggs, the teller, out of the funds of tbe bank, and not out of any funds to which he, the defendant, could legiti mately resort, he bad the guilty intent, and although it may have been the in tent of tlie defendant at the time he drew the alleged fraudulent checks men tioned in consolidated indictment, part 1, to finally recompense or remedy the in jury resulting from his act to The First National Bank of Dover, such an intent to correct the wrong does not absolve him from guilt. Nor would tlie fact, if fact it be, that he hoped through suc cessfut operations in stocks, or other property, or otherwise, be placed in a position to restore to tlie bank moneys wilfully misapplied through his wrong ful act be anv answer to the charge of criminality. No man is permitted to aid or abet the wilful misapplication of the funds of a national bank because lie hopes in the future to repair his wrong, So if you are satisfied that there was a fraudulent scheme, understanding or agreement between the defendant and William N. Boggs that the eight checks drawn by the defendant on The First National Bank of Dover in favor of E. B. CuthbertA Co., for the use, benefit and advantage of the defendant, were to be a paid by William N. Boggs, as teller, out of the funds of that bank, when lie, the defendant, had either no funds or only insufficient funds or was overdrawn in his account, and that such checks were not to be charged in tbe defendant's ac count, but were to be fraudulently con cealed from the proper bank officials until he, the defendant, should make de posits to meet them, the defendant had tbe guilty intent to injure or defraud the bank. For such scheme, understanding or agreement, if it existed and was ear ried out, as testified to, involved a fraudu lent and wilful misapplication of the ver 8, misap in all yi of the book to the amount of checks, and wrongfully deprived the the bank of the use and control of inch moneys until deposits subsequently made by the defendant, as testified to, covered the shortage thus created. An intent to injure or defraud a na tional bank within the meaning of Sec tion 5,200 of the United States revised statutes does not necessarily involve malice or ill will toward the bank. There are few, if any, cases in which the funds of a bank are embezzled.abstracted or wilfully misapplied for personal gain. The law presumes that every sane per son who has attained the age of discre tion contemplates and intends ttie neces sary or natural consequences of his own acts. It is sufficient that the unlawful intent is such that if carried into execu tion it will necessarily or naturally in jure or defraud the bank. It is wholly immaterial in this case whether the money alleged to have been taken from the funds of The First Na tional Bank of Dover, and applied to the payment of the alleged fraudulent checks or any of them, set forth in the consoli dated indictment, as it now stands, was so taken for the sole use, benefit and ad vantage of the defendant, or for the use, benefit and advantage of the defendant with others; and it is also wholly imma terial whether the money alleged to have been taken from the funds of that bank and applied to the payment of the al raudulent checks for the use, benefit and advantage of William N. Boggs, was so taken for the sole use, benefit and advantage of William N. Boggs with others. It is also wholly immaterial so far as the guilt or innocence of this defendant is concerned whether the alleged fraudu lent checks of the defendant set forth in the consolidated indictment, as it now stands, were intended for tbe use, bene fit and advantage of himself, on the one hand, or for the use, benefit and advantage of William N. Boggs, on the other, provided the evidence in the case supports the allegations in the different counts of the consolidated in dictment, aB it now stands, or some one In fact it is admitted, mom — or more of them, and not open to controversy, that all of the alleged fraudulent checks remaining for vour consideration were drawn by the'defendant either for his own use and benefit or for tlie use and benefit of Wil liam N. Boggs, as heretofore stated. In tlie course of tbe trial a number of alleged contradictions of the defendant and William N. Boggs and other witnes ses have been so fully and recently dis cussed by the counsel in the case that the court does not deem it necessary here to allude to them. You will doubt less consider them with discrimination and attach to them such weight as you deem them entitled to receive. With respect to the question whether Wil liam N. Boggs has been corroborated, it is proper to call your attention to the fact that lie has been supported in statements made by him on the witness stand not only by documentary evidence, but by the testimonv of witnesses on matters material to this case. It is unnecessary here to recapitulate the instances of cor roboration, but I will draw your atten tion to the statements of tlie president and tlie cashier of the First National Bank of Dover, as to what would or would not have been permttied with re spect to the treatment of checks on that bank. The subject of corroboration of Wil liam N. Boggs has been fully laid before you by the witnesses and the document ary evidence in the case, and is for your consideration. In deciding upon the weight which should be given to the defendant, on the one hand, and to William N. Boggs on the other, it is important that you should consider the inherent probabili ties of the testimony given by them re spectively. Before taking up the testimony of Wil liam N. Boggs is the of tlie defendant credible or in incredible. The defendant has been a member of the bar of Kent county since 1881, and has been actively engaged in tlie praetice of his profession. According to tiie testimony he bore no social rela tions to William N. Boggs. William testimony N. Boggs He admits that called for his advice with respect to the defalcation of the latter at The First National Bank of Dover. Both he and William N. Boggs corroborate each other that an interview with relation to that subject took place between them, al though the defendant places the inter view in the latter part of November, 1894, while William N. Boggs states that it occurred in the early part of October, 1895. The defendant states that he, the de fendant, was astonished and horrified at the disclosures made by Boggs. The de fendant further states that the interview between himself and Boggs did not last longer that from ten to fifteen minutes, while Boggs states that ways and means by which he might extricate ' himself from his financial difficulty were fully discussed, and that the interview lasted at least three hours. Which of these two statements is tbe more probable? The defendant further Btates that although be remained the torney for William N. Boggs, and met him almost daily, he, the defendant, never made any inquiry of Boggs whether his defalcation had been made good, or in relation to the subject in anv manner, and that he, the defendant, did not re ceive at any time after the consultation above referred to any information as to the defalcation of wetk before the flight of the latter, May 29, 1897, although during all that time he continued counsel for Boggs. William N. Boggs, on the contrary, testified that he had numerous inter views during that period with the de fendant in relation to his defalcation at The First National Bank of Dover, and informed him fully of the existing con dition of things. Which is the more probable of these statements? Tlie de fendant states that during this period he knew that Boggs was a gambler at cards, in horse racing, and that he was dealing in stocks on margins, and had been a defaulter to The First National Bank of Dover. William N. Boggs did not deny this statement. While the defendant availed himself of his right to testify, lie lias not stated that he did at any time prior to the flight of William N. Boggs make any inquiry of the officials of that bank as to the fidelity and regularity of William N. Boggs as teller. It is admitted that during this period tlie alleged fraudulent check set forth in tlie consolidated indictment, all of which were signed by the defendant, were given and paid out of the funds of The First National Bank of Dover, but ther defend ant denies that there was any corrupt understanding with William N. Boggs with respect to these checks. William N. Boggs, on the contrary, testified that these cneckB were paid out of tbe funds at s s until about a of that bank pursuant to an improper and illegal arrangement or understanding between himself and the defendant, With respect to all the alleged fraudu tent checks the negotiations testified-to iu the case took place Between ti e de fendant and William N. Boggs, exclu sively. Why did not the defendant with tlie knowledge of tlie evil habits of; William N. Boggs, and of the fact, if he remembered it—and that, of course, you will determine—that he ; had committed a defalcation at The First National Bank of Dover, deal witli Boggs without making suitable inquiry as to his fidelity. In view of these cir cumstances which is tlie more credible, the statement of William N. Boggs or , that of the defendant? If the defendant, believed that Bugas possessed sufficient means to meet the checks drawn by the defendant for the use and advantage of Boggs, why did he draw those checks, instead of'leaving Boggs to apply his own means for his own purposes? The defendant testified that he did draw such checks for the use and benefit of Boggs because Boggs did not want to have his, Boggs', checks passing through The First National Bank oi Dover. Would or would not such a request have called for an explanation on the part of William N. Boggs, and if so, it is for you to determine of whit nature it might have been, if made. The highest judicial tribunal in the country has used language peculiarly adapted to guide you in tlie discharge of your duty in this case, as follows; "One of the main objects of a jury trial is to secure to parties the judgment of twelve men of average intelligence who will bring to bear upon the consid eration of the case the same common sense which is supposed to characterize their ordinary daily transactions." With respect to the two conspiracy counts, being counts numbered one and five in consolidated indictment part 2, it is necessary to speak to you very briefly. Under section 5,440 of tne Revised Stat utes of the United States as amended, a corrupt combination of two or more per sons by concerted action to commit an offense against the United States is a ciiminai conspiracy, and when followed by any act or acts on the part of all or any of the conspirators to effect the ob ject of the conspiracy, is punishable as such. Tlie corrupt combination need not be established by any instrument of writing, or formal use of words. A mutual understanding between the con spirators is sufficient. The conspiracy alleged relating to tlie commission of an offense under section 5,209 of the Re vised Statutes of the United Stales, which has hereinbefore been dealt with, tbe evidence to establish an offense under section 5,209, adduced in this case is ap plicable to the conspiracy counts as far as it goes. • It is proper that I should add that your verdict should not be controlled by contradictions oil minor points should any sucli exist, provided the evidence, taken as a whole, after making ail due allowance for any bucIi contradictions, leads you to a fixed conclusion of the guilt of the defendant. If the evidence so taken shall not satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt, as already defined, that the defendant is guilty, lie should be acquitted. If, however, the evidence does so satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt, your verdict should be guilty. A criminal case involving much testi and many facts should not be de cided upon the probability or improb ability of any one point singled out of the evidence; but a proper decision re quires due consideration to be given to all the evidence, (jirect and circumstan tial, in the case. Gentlement, 1 need hardly remind you that you are fully to understand that alt intimations or expressions of opinion by the court upon the evidence in this case or deductions to be drawn from it, while intended to aid you in reaching proper conclusions, do not in the'least control you in arriving at your verdict. You are the sole judges of the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony, and the weight and effect of the evidence, whether oral or documentary. While it is the exclusive function of thee ourt to present to you the principles of law applicable to the case, it is your exclusive function to pass upon the facts and the evidence and reach a conclusion, subjuct to the princi ples of law as represented by the court. The court lias been requested to give you instructions on a number of points of law in the language employed by coun sel in the case. The charge oi the |court embraces in substance all the proposi tions suggested by counsel in so lar as those propositions are, in the opinion of the court properly applicable to the case. Your verdict 'should represent the opinion of each member of your body, after an intelligent and conscientious comparison and consideration in the jury room of the views of the individual jurors. Your investigation of the evi dence should be marked with due de liberation and your minds should re main open to conviction by arguments which commend themselves to your judgment. The very object of the jury system is to secure unanimity through comparison of the views and through arguments among the jurors themselves. If a large majority of the jurors after de liberation in the j'ury room,differ in their conclusion with the minoritv, it is proper for those composing such minority, in view of the fact of such difference, to re view the grounds of their own conclu sions in order that, if possible, unanim ity may be reached in accordance with the principles of law heretofore laid down. But no juror should acquiesce against his individual judgment in the conclusions reacheu by other jurors, whether constituting a majority or a mi nority of your whole body. For your verdict must represent the real opinion and judgment of each member of the jury. The guilt or innocence of the de fendant is to be determined by you as intelligent and conscientious men, upon the evidence adduced in this case and upon that alone. A grave and solemn responsibility rests upon you. No pub lic clamor, no consideration of conse quences which may result from your ver dict, should be permitted in any man ner to influence your deliberations or control your verdict. If upon all the evidence in the case you are not satified beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant on any count remaining in either part of the consolidated indictment, you siiould acquit him; but if upon all the evidence in the case yoa are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty in manner and form as lie stands indicted in some one or more of the counts remaining in the consolidated in dictment you should return a verdict of guilty. If you find a verdict of guilty, it may be a general verdict of guilty as to all of tbe counts remaining in the consolidated indictment, or either part thereof, or monv verdict of guilty as to any one or more Of the counts remaining in the consoli dated indictment, or either part thereof, as (he evidence shall warrant. In con elusion I again remind you that the counts remaining open for your consid eration are counts in consolidated indict ment, part 1, numbered ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, seventeen and eighteen, and counts in consolidated indictment, part 2, numbered one and five, „ „ ... ... „ . ** cv ' Henry Ashton, of New Aork, J MINISTER DEPOSED. Taken From the Ministry. Charged With Cruelty. The annoucement was made yesterday that Rev. Henry Ashton, a Methodist clergyman affiliated with the New York East Conference, has been deposed from the ministry for cruelty to his wife. A judicial conference, composed of twenty elders from the Philadelphia, Wilmington and New Jerey Conference, and which body is virtually a Court of Appeals, met at Wesley Hall in the Methodist Book Rooms, Philadelphia, some days ago and heard the case of tlie preacher behind closed door. Mr. Ashton is well-known in this city, he having been here on a number of occasions. THE SPORTS OF THE DAY Gleanings Gathered From Off tbe Gridiron and in the Pugi listic World. DIAMOND DUST. L. Whistler, of St. Louis, has been en gaged to manage the Syracuse, N. Y., team next season. George Stallings, who managed the Philadelphia Club for one and one-half seasons, arrived in New York Thursday. The National League magnates con tinued their pow-wow Thursday in New York, but aid not get through much business. The League declared the Brush resolution against the use of obscene language by players a great success, and appointed Messrs. Hart, of Chicago; So den, of Boston, and Brush,of Cincinnati, a committee of three to consider the recommendation that further power he given to the Board of Discipline. Buffalo was granted permission by the Board of Arbitration to transfer its terri tory and players to the Western League. The Eastern League applied for per mission to extend its territory to Newark and Hartford. Rusie is one of the best twirlers in the country, and now that it has been an nounced that he is to be released by the Jj'ew York Club, there is a scramble to secure his services. Like Rusie, there is a great scramble to secure Meekin's services. He is one of the best pitchers iu the League, and New York base ball cranks will be very sorry to have him leave the Giants. A number of magnates discussed be hind closed doors a scheme for the form ation of two eight-club leagues—New York, Brooklyn, Boston, Philadelphia. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago and St, Louis to form tlie National League, and the American Association to consist of Washington, Baltimore, Louisville. Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis and second clubs in Philadelphia and Chi cago. SELF DEFENSE. George Beyers broke his hand in Ills recent light with Jack Bonner. Tommy White and Kid Ryan are to box in Chicago on Monday. Jack Fo cured tlie is reported to have se Club at Athens, Pa. Jim Corbett lias at last found some thing to do. He has been promised the management of a saloon in Havana. Dal Hawkins of California, and Kid McPartland of New York, will meet at 135 pounds in tlie Lenox A. C. Tuesday night. Joe Butler and Tom Carey are to box twenty-five rounds at Gloucester, N. J., on December 20. jgarty it Olympic Oscar Gardner and Frank Bradley are to box twenty rounds at Wheeling, W. Va., on December 27. Tommy Ryan has signed to box twen ty-five rounds with Fitzsimmons at Bridgeport, Conn., for a purse of $7,500. Frank F'arley was knocked out in eight rounds at Baltimore Thuisday night by Herman Miller, and Jim Janey knocked out Tom Williams, of Australia, iu three rounds. Tom Broderick was given a decision on a foul over Hiram Goldstein at Yon kers, N. Y., Thursday night. The bout scheduled for twenty ronnds, but only lasted five. Dave Sullivan and Oscar Gardner have signed articles to box twenty rounds at I he Lenox Club, New York, on January 9. They will fight at efttchweights, but Sullivan must weigh in to show his weight. Bob Fitzsimmons is reported to be after the Coney Island Boxing Club. Fitz simmons said last night: "It is true that I am after the Greater New York A. C., and I expect to land it. I think I can make a success of it." was CYCLING. Chari is W. Miller, winner of tlie re cent six day bicycle race in Madison Square Garden, has entered fora twenty four-hour contest which will begin in the Garden on the night of Friday, Jan. 6, and end the following night. Eddie McDuffee is after the records created by Major Taylor. It is said that lie will establish a record camp at tlie famous Panama Park track, in Jackson ville, where a number of successful na tional circuit meets have been held in the past. Tony Johnson, the brother of Johnnie Johnson, the noted cyclist, is lying dan gerously ill with pneumonia at the New York Hospital. Johnson took care of Teddy Hale during the six-day grind. He had little sleep throughout the week, and when he caught cold his system w as not in condition to fight it off. Tlie phy sicians are sanguine of Johnson's re covery. Arthur Gardiner, tlie blonde boy from the \VeBt, has announced his retirement from the racing path. Gardiner proved himself by his many wins during tlie past season to be tlie real sprinting champion of the United States. He wa9 one of the few of professional racing men that could be called a gentleman, and rightly, too. Gardiner's father has re quested Arthur to retire and go in busi ness with him in Chicago.