The sun., 1904-07-14
JERONELAW HELD TOBE VALID
LEWISOHN MUST TELL ABOUT
GAMBLING AT CANFIELDS

yssvv =. rt-e. mt ~ r,,,. yu,,~.. AZ
Appellate Division-Had Court been
Unanimous He Would Have Yielded.
s nppsIa'e Divlsoh OF 'ne ouprehe
Court decided yesterday by vote OF 8
TO . that the Dowling bill, or Jerome law,
pasSeo oy the last Legislature u oonstitu-
uonal, and dismissed the writ OF certiorari
obtained by Jesse Lewisohn after he had
been held in oontepnpt for refus,ng IN tell
the Grand Jury about his gambling at Can
neds.
Lewisohn based his refusal to answer
on the provision in the Constitution that
sn, 49,, .ho,I =. a.n.,,sa a., ~, -;
~, ~ p.s pn ~ '.'an hs 70 onap neu o,na. ~ any h,a,e
Justice Ingraham says:
The right Of a wtness to refuso to answer
tend to crimnate him or subject him to a
penalty or to disgrace or degrade him
may be protected BY a constitutional pro-
msy so far o.
Wines witness ana limit OF the personal r'sh' OF
The Legislature has power to require
VI, witness % / answer any Question, s5ssspt, 50
and II follows that Il the answers to ibe oues.
tons asked cannot IN any way be used against
the witness in a criminal proceeding, the pro-
We think there Is no doubt that this
statute does give the witness complete i'm
mpnity from prosecution for any crime in
telason TO the acts about which VII. ne was IN,
necessarily follows that ' compellina him to
was directly come connected with it. does not com
pei him to be a witness against himself In a
criminal proceeding,
Other questions before the court were
whether the law, II applied to Lewisohn,
has has 2 retroactive effect, and, 90, whether
the Legislature meant 1t to have retroac-
tive effect. Justice Ingraham thinks that
it has no retroactive effect az applied TO the
present proceeding begun since It's passage
lac says:
II relates to rule OF evidence and does not
pear at all upon the commission OF the Of
ienSe c., or tn the EVIDENCE necessary to prove Y.
The ofTenre hnt ,,ron oe ptnass rniIed tnsi
tify upon judicial proceedns in relation
TO It: nor IL the person charged with the crime
entitled to object to a question asked on the
sround that the answer would tend to incrimi-
tho xitnn nd hs one 6ieaIS ps 70 LOT Sr
tify depends 'up UPON m the law II in force at the
time he is called and examined.
To Justify his, refusal to answer II must
appear that at the time Of the examination
he s was S ehh!tsa y M 70 exercise ms persona! pTiMy ~
court to reauire him ITO to answer and to enforce rec
obedience to- it's S direction by proceedinSs
for contempt.
Justice Van Brunt and Patterson concur
and Justices Mclaughlin and Lau ohlin
dissent.
sStatutes desisned to affect past trans
actions usually have their oripin In an i'm
proper motive and rarely accomplish any
public good says Justice Mclaughlin.
He holds, further, that the law does have
a retroactive effect If applied to Lewisohn
and that therefore it does not apply to him.
He saws:
There are no words in the act OF 1904 from
which even an inference can be drawn that
the Legislature ever Intended it to apply to
past transactions. A cardinal rule relating
the 81 m that they
are hoI 70 nave S resr9aSS've @ eneSt @ nnless Unless
ihe aTnresssd in ~ neer and hu unanbu
words. ~
"a se vesterdav H.s counsel Alfred Ialiter.
bach, said that he would appeal at once, but
addad that II the Court of Anncsls went
a 1ainst his ciient he did not th}nE he would
ro hevond that
.W Tho dac;sion had heen unan;mo,s
sa;d NJ Ta1,terhsch amv advice tn M
Tewisohn would probably have been Go