Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-12-11
DEFENSE OF PERKINS
Arguments in Life Insurance
Company Case.
THE 1904 CAMPAIGN GIFT
Vice Presidents Counsel Defends
Subscription.
CONTENTION OF THE STATE
District Attorney Pressed the
Charge Of Grand
Larceny.


ALBANY, December n.-Argument on the
criminal charge against George w. Perkins,
as vice president of the New York Life In
surance Company, in connection with the
payment of $4S.5O0 to the republican ma
tional committee in tc, campaign of 1904.
was begun before the court of Appeals yes
terday.
Grand larceny in the first degree Is the
charge made by District Attorney Jerome
against Mr. Perkins. 1t was shown be-
fore the Armstrong insurance committee
year ago that Mr.. Perkins paid the money
out of his own funds, but that the money
was returned to him with interest out OF
the funds Of the New York Life insurance
Company by order Of President mccall.
The original proceeding was an apphca-
ton by the district attorney to Magistrate
Moss on March % for bench warrant for
the arrest Of Mr.. Perkins. The warrant
was issued, he was arrested, and his coun-
sci secured a writ of nabeas corpus when
was dismissed by Justice Greenbaum OF the
supreme court. who thus upneio the Gon-
tention of the district attorney that crime
had been committed. Perkins appealed TO
the appellate division. which reversed JUS.
tice Greenbaum, and ordered the release OF
the defendant. It is from this decision OF
the appellate division that the district at
torney appeals the case argued today.
The States Case.
Wallace MacFarlane of New York OF
counsel for District Attorney Jerome mace
the argument for the people.
1--WE shall contend said Mr.. MacFar-
lane. that Perkins was an accessory be-
fore the fact to what would generally be
called an embezzlement Of the funds Of the
New York Life Insurance Company. The
penal code calls an accessory before the
fact principal and calls endorsement lar
ceny."
Mr.. MacFarlane quoted from affidavits
which told of the meeting of the finance
committee of the New York Life 1nsur-
ance Company In December. 1904, which
ordered the reimbursing Of Perkins. MI
MacFarlane said that after that meeting
a check for $4S,7O25O was drawn to the
order of J. P. Morgan & Co. to 'reim-
| burse George w. Perkins.
Mr.. MacFarlane, that he was a member
| of the firm Of ]. p. Morgan & Co. and
that the sum was credited to his account
| upon the books OF that hrm. Inc oook
entries of this transaction were so mace
as to conceal its nature
Question Involved.
1.-THE question involved in his case Is
whether q corporate officer paying out
funds of the corporation without consid-
Grafton, and without authority of its
members or directors, for a purpose for
public policy, and known or feared by
him to be wrong, although payments for
that specific purpose have not been spe-
cially covered by any provision OF the
penal code. nevertheless commits the
OBVIOUSLY, the business of the New
York Life Insurance Company was insur-
ance. Certainly nothing could be more
unconnected with its lawful corporate
business than to engage in political cam
paigns and expend the funds which 1t
! held for the benefit of its policy holders
! in promoting the election to political Of
| fee Of the candidates favored by two OF
| the principal officers of the company"
| The Other Side.
| Former Justice William N. Cohen, as
sisted by Lewis l. Delafeld, appeared In
| behalf of Mr.. Perkins. Judge Cohen de-
clared that the essential elements Of en-
bezzlement were lacking and that tho
| records of the case disclosed nothing
| from which it could be inferred that any
rightful intent
| He argued that a subscription which q
CORPORATION might have made to the San
| Francisco relief fund or which bank
| might make to a church might be classed
| as something outside of the business OF
| the corporation, and therefore a contribu-
| ton which the stockholders in the cor
poration might recover from the omcers
| making it, Such a contribution, however.
| would not allow any basis for criminal
action against these officers
| Now, it is to be observed that in ac-
cepting and receiving this reimburse
did and was called upon to do no act as
officer or trustee of the company. and
! was dealing with the company as COM
pletely at arms length as would any
/ agent presenting a claim for disburse-
ments made or even an insured present
| ing a claim upon q policy.