The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-12-11
PERKINS CASE UP AGAIN.
JerOmc's Appeal Argued Before the Court
OF Appeals.

JoTOnncs appear Argued beIOre inc court
OF Appeals.
ALBANY, Dec. I0.-Arguments were pre-
sented in the Court Of Appeals this after
noon in the criminal proceedings brought
by District Attorney Jerome Of New York
against George W. Perkins, vice-president
Of the New York Life Insurance Company,
in connection with the payment Of s4S, 500
to Chairman Cortelyou of the Republican
national committee during the campaign OF
1904. On December 80. 1904, upon the order
Of President Mccall Of the company and
with the knowledge Of the company's
finance committee, Of which Mr.. Perkins
was chairman, this amount with interest
was made good TO Mr.. Perkins.
On March 2s of this year, after examining
the evidence brought out by the Armstrong
committee, Mr.. Jerome applied to City
Magistrate Joseph Moss for a warrant OF
arrest for Mr.. Perkins on the ground that
he had committed a criminal act in
having paid the money out as his own
funds for the benefit of the insurance COM
pany. Mr.. Perkins was arrested on this
bench warrant, charged with the crime of
grand larceny in the first degree. Counsel
for Mr.. Perkins secured q writ OF habeas
corpus and brought him before the SUI
RICIhoS VuSJtto vi CtIlphuIu0 blLJI1k III
Special Tern, dismissed the writ of habeas
corpus and the accompanying wits OF
certiorari and upheld the District Attorney.
An appeal was taken at once bv counsel
for Mr.. Perkins and on May rs Of this year
the Appellate Division reversed Justice
Greenbaum and upheld the contentious
Of the attorneys for Mr.. Perkins. The
order OF this court dismissed the order of
aVt,aaf and ralaoaaI NJ Darlrtno fHapn ~, O
tody.
1t was from this decision Of the Appellate
Division that District zAttorney Jerome
appealed IND it was this appeal that was
argued to-day. Wallace Macfarlane, who
with Edward B. Whitney was counsel
for the District Attorney in the Peoples
case, presented the arguments for the
appellants. Former Justics William n.
Cohen of the Supreme Court, who will
Lewis L.. Delafeld and Howard 3. Cans
is counsel for Mr.. Perkins, presented the
arguments for Mr.. Perkins.
The contention was advanced by Mr..
Perkins's attorneys that disbursements of
this character had frequently been made
from time to time on order Of President
Mccall and for the benefit OF the material
interests OF the policyholders. The reason
why Mr.. Perkins made the initial payment,
it was explained, was in order TO make it
easier for President Mccall TO refuse de-
hands for other campaign contributions.
AS to the disbursement itself, Mr.. Perkins
paid out the money for the company in
the firm belief hat he was acting for it's
interests and without a shadow of a doubt
as to his right TO do what he was doing.
NJ. Macfarlane in his argument said:
The question involved in this case il
whether a corporate officer payi ng out
funds of the corporation without consider
alton moving TO it and without authority OF
its member or directors for a purpose
foreign to it's business and known or feared
by him to be wrong, although pay
ments for that specific purpose lave not
been specifically covered by any provision
of the Penal Code, nevertheless commits the
crime of larceny. The payment TO Perkins
was without consideration. The payment
was unauthorized by member or directors.
The purpose for which the m was
made was foreign to the business of the
corporation. 1t was also against public
policy. Perkins was an accessory before
the fact. There was sufficient evidence
before the Magistrate 10 warrant his in
ferring that the payment was known OF
feared to be wrong, both by Perkins and
by the treasurer"