The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-05-26
SUSPECTS HUMMEL'S A CROOK
JEROME DOESN'T MINCE WORDS
BEFORE JUSTICE DAyI.
question: the Indicted Lawyer Refused
to Answer Before Grand Jury About
Morse-DOdge Case Brought out Court
Not Likely To Dismiss indictments

After hearing an argument that lasted
most of tine day Justice Davy in the Supreme
Court, Criminal Branch, minated very
strongly last evening that it Is not his inten-
ton to dismiss the indictments-two for
.uborna.ion Of perjury and one for COM
spiracy-against Abraham II, Hummel,
growing out of the investigation Of the
Dodge-Morse marriage and divorce tangle.
De Lancey Nicoll has until Monday to sub
nit additional papers. and 1t is probable that
Justice Davy will announce his decision on
Wednesday. Ifiti is adverse to Mr.. HummeI
It Ia expected that a demurrer to the in
dictments will be filed and that an applica-
ton will be made for a commission to take
testimony, 40 that 1t Is not likely that the
trial will begin on the date specified June5.
Mr.. Niooll argued that II the Grand Jury
was conducting general inquisitorial In
veetigation in the Dodge-Alorse tangle It
was exceeding its powers, and further.
that II il was the purpose to indiot Humnel
and make him defendant his constitutional
rights had been violated and the indictment
WAS invalid To this District Attorney
Jerome replied that this man Hummel," a
LAWYER Of twenty-hv years standing, knew
his rights very WELL and having been a wit
ness before the Grand Jury year before
and ha wing been notified Of charges pending
against him before the Bar Association. was
perfecty aware whom the investigation
concerned when he was called to testify
in the case of Charles F. Dodge and others
After listening to the lawyers patiently
Justice Davy said:
Il, seems to me, Mr.. Nicou. that q
LAWYER Of Mr.. Hummers experience and
knowledge of the criminal law when he
went before the Grand Jury would not
testify to anything that would tend to In
criminate him. He knew when be was
called before the Grand Jury the nature Of
the invest igations and II he chose to waive
his constitutional privileges and give tes-
tinony am inclined to think 10 had that
right and that the Grand Jury might have
taken it into consideration But it seems
from the affidavit Of the District Attorney
that he Grand Jury was instructed not to
take any of his testimony into considera-
ton in finding an indict ment against him.
and therefore l must assume that If they
found the indict ment they had ample and
abundant evidence upon which to base the
indict ment
Il, would, it seems to me. be rather
narrow rule to hold to your doctrine that
because man was subpenaed and appeared
before the Grand Jury and was asked to
testify, or cert ain questions we're put to
lin and he declined to answer those oues-
tons on the ground that it might tend to
incriminate him. 1t vtiated the indict ment.
although there was abundant evidence
aside from his st statements upon which the
Grand Jury might find an indict ment.
The Court must assume when an indict-
ment IL found that there was legal evidence
ipon which the Grand Jury based It."
Mr. Nicoll declared that the Grand Jury
had no right to begin an ipve:agat!op on
III crime has been committee and there
Is every evidence that murder has been
commtte ed must the Grand Jury walt until
The duty 0, investigating crime belongs
to the Police Department. to the executive
department Of the government, not the
GrSRd IVY spsd a Ms S 10 IL, B.r A,.o
citation with his Charge against Mr., Hum.
mel he threw of the mask, Mr. Niooll said,
and It became apparent that he was trying
to q H. all and ey all Ssa
parallel In the history OF criminal prose-
tuition, Mr.. Nicoll said.
Mr.. Jerome said that Mr.. Hummel had
been fully advised Of his rights. He had
been witness before the Grand Jury In
willing to testify at any time and bring the
books and papers Of his Office, Then came
the charges to the Bar Association, based
on Mr.. Hummel's connection with Dodge's
attempt to have the Divorce obtained by
his wife annulled after she had married
Charles W. Morse.
This man Hummel, lawyer OF twenty.
FIVE years standing, was informed them
Mr.. Jerome said, and 1t was put on record
that he was charged with conduct so gross
would this astute lawyer have any doubt
az to why he was called before the Grand
Jury? They say the District Attorney
wanted to hdict him am perfectly
frank to say. that believe that he com
overwhelming evidence to prove it.
when this man Hummel is before the
Grand Jury he Is driven into a corner and
harassed. according to my friend Of the
criminal rich Hooking at Mr.. Nicolll. and
District Attorney. SO this man, whom the
District Attorney suspected OF being a
crook, was asked number Of questions
some Of which he answered and others he
declined to answer-and he comes here and
says he was compelled to answer in vio-
lation OF his constitutional rights. That
seems to me to be contention that shocks
ones intelligence
MIR .eromes charges to the Bar Associa-
ton and the questions asked of Mr. Humme
before the Grand Jury were made public
in the course of Yesterdays proceedings
The cha rges accuse Mr.. Hummel Of fraud,
deceit and gross professional misconduct
in that he acted as an attorney for Dodge
in the action brought by Dodge to have the
eivorce obtained by his wife vacated, when
be (Hummei) knew that Dodge had been
served with summons and complaint
bad supplied the evidence for the divorce
and had authorized a lawyer to appear for
him Mr. jerome added: Such action con-
stituted gross fraud and imposition on the
Supreme Court and a reproach and a scan
dai to the profession of the law"
There were many questions that Mr..
Ilumme declined to answer before the
Grand Jury either on the ground that
answering would tend to incriminate him
OF on the ground Of professional privilege.
Before being sworn he filed with the Grand
Jury statement asking the purpose Of the
Investigation. Then he declined to produce
the books OF his Arm OF to state if the books
would show communications made to him
by his clients He declined to answer
whether in the Dodge divorce. action he
rendered any service for any one else than
Charles F. Dodge. He wouldn't tell what
services, II any. he rendered Dodge, on the
ground that it might tend to incriminate
him He explained that the books of the