New-York tribune., 1906-05-09
INTENT STORM CENTRE
PERKINS CASE ARGUED.
Jerome and Unfermger assert Ev'-
dence Jusfities Jury TrioL

.,ts-s-nsDsr intent psss the main point around
vlueh she arguments hinged yesterday in tho ap-
rcsl from TIE order OF Justice Greenbaum dis
r.is,Ins the writ o. habeas corpus in the charge
os grand larceny made against George w. Perkins
,n account OF che 5000 contribution made I'm iees
hs- che New York Life Insurance Company 20 the
Republican national campaign fund when he was
a rice-presidenI Of the company.
me argument was held before the Appellate d.
vision. Presiding Justice O'Brien did not sit. on
account OF his connection with the Insurance stu-
alton as one Of the three trustees of the Equitable.
Justice Patterson presided. and on the bench with
him were Justices Mclaughlin. Ingrahans Laugh
ln and Clarke. Judge Andrew Hamilton who
spent many times $4,000 Ot the funds OF the New
York Lie IN ways that are yet 70 be made clear
was 81 the most interested auditors. Mr.. Per-
kins was NOT present. but had private stenog-
r6paer faera It Is sald
Ex-Jr-tiee Cohen ana Lewis L. Delafel6. repre-
senting Mr. Perkins. argued that there was no
criminal intent In the transaction, while District
Attorney Jerome and Samuel UnteTmyer. counsel
gor the international POlicyholders' Association
ooasended that there sufficient proof OF GRIM
nal intent 20 Justify them in asking that The case
bs submitted 90 jury In the course OF MS aTs1-
neat Mr.. Untermyer said
Had Mr. Mccall. the president OF the New York
I4tSe Insurance Conpany. advanced his own money money
stances and for the purpose disclosed he could not
have recovered in a civii action against the COM
Eany the amount acknowledgements such a trans"
nction was ultra wires and also Illegal MeClai ali
the moaey.
Could the reator excuse the larceny by show
ing intent TO beneht the company2 1t is sub
mitted that he could not There Is no pISof p % o.
lato-'s bare assertion OF that conclusion. No fact
piled
e is submitted that. upon the facts appearing IN
and.ng thaE there was criminal intent. i Is not
accurate 10 say that the reator appropriated THIS
money to the use of the Republican National Com
mittee. He converted Il 10 his use TO relm-
Bliss az % The request q Mr. Mccal @ The Company
Owed him I'M nothins and he knew T. 49,. e-.-.
the fact that the check is drawn 10 the order Of
not appear TO have had any transaction, and that
there S no entry OF SHggStlon On on any book Of the
nature e or & PurpOse, Of the the payment Il THE the Smis-
kept under the direction Of the relator the offence
would clearly come within the definition Of forgery
District Attorney Jerome said that 20 take the
money of persons whose families 70 rely upon
them for support TO advance the interests Of a
party to which they are opposed was contrary 20
the whole fundamental ethical concepts OF this
community He added;
As showing the criminal intent, great deal OF
discretion resides in the court maintain that IL
is sufficient 70 prove that there wes moral evil.
there was felonious intent.
Ex-Judge Cohen. on behalf Of Mr.. Perkins. said:
without felonious intent. there is no theft. I
submit that there is no SUFFICIENT legal evidence in
ing jurisdiction
The act was. done openly and avowedly. Mr.
Mccall declared that he believed It to be for the
interest OF the company that the payments be made
The finance committee approved of the reimburse
ment Of Mr.. Perkins, and the treasurer and as
sistant treasurer caused the payment 70 be made
Certainly, your Honor VIII remember that in the
campaign Of 1855 and 1900 particularly, every one
who could contributed. because 1t believed that
The prosperity of the country in danger. And
in 1894 again there was a question as 10 what
might follow the election. And maintain that
this expenditure was for the benefit Of the true
owners.
There is absolutely proof Of felonious intent.
Where did such intent come in? Was IL when
Mr. Perkins paid over the money? If the matter
had stopped then, surely ne would have been the
only party to lose any money. Was II when
the finance committee expressed its approvall
Was il when the check delivered. when the
transaction entered in the books? Such tran
sactons all in regular order, do not indicate crimi
nal intent
Decision reserved, but il is understood that
the justices will give their immediate attention 20
the case that their opinion may be available as
guide for the insurance grand jury.
Justice Scott yesterday reserved decision
motion for the inspection of the grand jury minutes
made by William Rand. jr., behalf OF William
Brewer, jr., under indictment for perjury in con.
nection with acts committed by him when presi-
dent OF the Washington Life