The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-05-25
,lNPAIGN GIFTS NOT CRIMgY
o. rDrt fRtF arm ~ fW ~
nm TRTE FpRRIts


f%t.tfHNr I'VE s4af ~ We EF"ffeHf'"H
,prssf ~ ~ TstrH Nv wv tveHt
...#I .NH NO. irrr''ofc Wyisirn
nua .we eu hand doen ~
ty Nv NO snse ~ t~usee "
I tla, ,'prfri that no Ieri.
e.a.ss 'ha' W No cput' Isiow
unlrlI W. Pertinss contentlon
rrt ,o'rrii grand larceny
uf.al thr fetufn ~ iso0o
r,,,. prrstleai ~ Tho vew
ru.r,tro' Company. hal ON.
.ur ,amraim fund ~ Tho
.rr,. In lhe Presidential cnm-
.t
.. a.. . .... ltun ~ tprl - dlsmis-ei
tUr,4 corpus sworn out hv Mr..
u..u he nrreai Justice Urecn-
.| Haf such campaign cpntritu-
.. .'lcgdl and came within tho
...IrrF larceny lie oriercd that
.nuuld 10 rcmnndcd 20 custody
'l"u ~ the Grand Jury, gnd
'wori should I've found nv that
BOO .tand trial,
...' VIZ NhhfNh w w hIINlAnN' "
.r Nr PerkinS's lawyers. lewis L..
&c.. .,.i and William n. Cohen Immediately
s.r Justice Greentaum made his deci-
..r.prd ,hr argument was heard on May
The court has taken somewhat less than
o.. -uu, time in reaching its decision in
the vUat'or.
-.II.. the higher court override Justice
C...1haum and order Mr.. Perkins dis
rl--ad from custody II will uphold Mr..
Jrr mes earlier contention that while
sgcN contributions were undoubtedly wrong,
the fundamental principle Of the law was
the intent, and that criminal intent to com-
nit larceny on the part Of those who made
these contributions as officers OF the COM
ranv could not be proved. This was Mr..
Jerome's contention in the brief he sub
mitted to Judge O'Sullivan when the latter
had before him the question propounded
by the Grand Jury. Judge O'Sullivan, II
will be remembered. took the opposite view.
As a result Of Judge O'Sulivan's de-
cision Mr.. Jerome at once got out a warrant
for Mr.. Perkins, in order to make a test.
In the subsequent proceedings. both before
the Supreme Court and the Appellate
Division, Mr.. Jerome for purposes of the
argument maintained that the character
OF the act showed criminal intent. in his
argument before the Appellate Division
Mr.. Cohen commended that nowhere had
even the approach TO criminal intent been
shown, hat the act had been done openly,
and that furthermore there was a color
Of title which the courtsh had held precluded
the idea Of larceny.
Mr.. Perkins is at present paroled In the
custody Of his counsel. Lewis L, Delafeld.
After Justice Greenbaum dismissed the
writ OF habeas corpus his lawyers obtained
from the same Judge a stayof all criminal
proceedings pending an appeal. AS the
whole purpose OF the proceedings has been
10 get a 6nal adjudication OF the matter Of
such campaign contributions by the Court
of Appeals the decision Of the Appellate
Division will be appealed from by which,
ever side that loses. In the meantime if 1t is
in favor Of Mr.. Perkins he will be released
from custody.
Some Of the lawyers were Of the opinion
yesterday that an appeal could be expe-
dited and the arguments heard before the
Court OF Appeals within two weeks. in which
case there might he a decision by the high
est court before the summer adjournment,
The decision of the Appellate Division,
which it il expected will he handed down
to-day, has been awaited by lawyers with
great interest because of it's important
bearing upon all the insurance cases. It
was the expectation when the proceedings
were begun that the real fight would be
before the Court Of Appeals, but the feeling
Of somo of the lawyers interested has been
that the Appellate Division would agree
with Justice Greenbaum. They have not
Teen expecting a decision for Mr.. Perkins.