New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-11-18
VICTORY FOR GARDNER.
POLICE METHODS REBUKED By THE
SUPREME COURT
TIE. GENERAL TERM REvEEsES TIE JuIY'S
VERDICT AND SETS FREE TIE FORMER
AGENT OF THE PARKHURsT SOCIETY
ONE DISSENTING OPINION.

AGENT OF THE PARKHCRST SOCIETY
ONE DISSENTING OPINION.
The General Term of the Supreme Court yesterday
reversed the verdict of the jury ana the sentence
imposed by Recorder Smyth upon charles W.
Gardner, the agent OF Dr. ParKhursts society,"
who was charged by Catharine Amos keeper OF
disreputable house, with accepting from her brlpe
of $50 to refrain from prosecuting her and as
turbng her place. The Amos woman, 1t was
brought out in the trial. hai arranged with Po-
lice Captain Devery to lay trap for Gardner
and TO secure evidence against him. 1t was al
Ieged that Gardner fell into this trap. and re-
ccved money from the woman. lie was then ar
rested. tried and convicted of cxtortion.
An appeal was taken 10 the General Term OF
the sunren,e Cour. uron questions of law. 1t being
argued that the Amos woman was not the victim
of extorton, according 20 her own testimony
she did not yield TO GardneTs demands through
fear. 1t waG also urged that Recorder Smyth
rulings In excluding the testimony OF officers or
the Parkhurst society to show that Gardner. In
his dealings with the Amos woman, was acting
under instructions from the society were faulty.
The opinion OF the General Term. written by Judge
Follett and concurred in by Judge Parker. decides
that both Of these points are well taken and orders
Gardner to be discharged from custody.
This decision Is rebuke to Captain Devery and
the methods which the police have employed 10
prevent unpleasant discoveries Of their donss,
and n great victory for William Travers jerome
and John W. GoG, who were counsel for Gardner
Judge O'Brien writes a dissenting opinion. In
which he says that while Gardner's conviction was
illegal on the charge OF extorion. nevertheless he
should not be discharged from custody, because he
is liable to be tried and convicted for attempted
extorton.
After quoting the sections of the Penal Code
under which Gardner convicted the opinion
reads: THE crime Of extortion Is not committea
unless the person parting with his money Is In
duced to do by the wrongful use OF force or
fear or under color of official right. No force was
used by the defendant. nor did he get the money
under color OF official right. and there Il no charge
In the Indictment of the use OF force or of the
assertion OF official right The evidence on behalf
of the people which must assume was believed
by the jury estabshed evfhsS rsatSnrlne 81 Amos
was induced by fear to give $50 to the defendant;
in saying this we assume without decd's i ' nat
the fact Is not material. that the money ga hot
belong to the woman but to Captain William =
Devery: who delivered It to her for me sole pur-
The decision reviews at length the testimony OF
the Ames woman IT wes IN ore sha ,rs she i n
ner as the agent OF the Parkhurst society. had
asred to refrain from pr o ssr cp sim
Dcvery conspired with her TO entrap Gardner ini2
arrest him. The opinion here points out again that
no fear is shown in this testimony a.. 49,,
to the question G1 ,ne these Of r rn
the Court erred For these errors the Judgment
h s.n be crnndt a a aa ah Is this &
the defendant should be DISCHARGED"
that although 1t was not shown that there was an
element OF fear in the payment OF the money to
ner rnay be prosecuted for the lesser Grim" OF an
attempt at eStoron Grine fr ne IN sayS ngnpis
was not in fear ana was acilng accord,ng 10 Ihe
instructions OF Pole Certain Revefy Goi Gnransr
through IT, Therefore Judge OBrien says he thinks
that Gardner should be convicted OF an attempt
at