The daily morning journal and courier., 1906-03-31
ARGUMENTS MADE IN
 GEO. ". PERKINS CASE
tcontinued from First Page.)

| | MT. Mccall" he said, held great l funds in his possession, and he used
 them for public benefits. He believed
 sincerely that when he directed the
 payment of this money to MT. Perkins
 he was acting for the best interests of the policyholders of his company. Out
 side of his vested authority, perhaps, but not illegal-certainly not criminal" It was then explained to the court | that MT. Perkins had advanced his per-
 sonal funds to MT, Bliss and had been
 repaid months afterward by the New York Life.
 "Is it common sense," asked Judge
 Cohen, Ito charge a man with having stolen from another when he is repaid repaid his own? MT. Perkins believed
 he was doing the best thing for his company, and it is at his request that
 make this further statement: In say ing that he acted throughout under the
 direction of MT. Mccall MT Perkins
 has not the slightest idea of attributing
 to MT. Mccall any except the highest I motives, or any wish or idea except to
 protect the interests of the policyhold-
 CTS"
 Judge Cohen argued that none of the
 code definitions of larceny applied to
 MT Perkins case. When he read the
 clause dealing with improper payments
 by officers of corporations having con-
 trol of such payments, Justice Green
 baum asked:
 DO you mean to claim that vice
 president of a corporation cannot be
 said to be an officer having control Of
 funds within the meaning of the stat
 ute; that the only officers so included S are those who actually draw the $ checks?"
 t T think that is the meaning of the n law" replied Judge Cohen. l "So narrow as thatP' commented l, Justice Greenbaum.
 e ''I think that purport of the law Is as = sensible as that" rejoined the lawyer. # Justice Greenbaum then asked wheth- n CT Judge Cohen thought that his in-
 terpretation would shield from convic- e tion of larceny an officer who accepted t money wrongfully given to him or paic {, to him by check by an officer having d that authority. Justice Cohen sait |, that if criminal wrongdoing was charg' # ed, 1t was covered by other provisions j. of the penal code, but he maintained s that it would not be larceny under tht
 code. .. n Justice Greenbaum remarked: :" j. merely wished to fully understand you IS contention" Later he said: e "A mans motive may be perfectly j. good, and yet he may be guilty O
 crime" Il Judge Cohen replied that there is 's distinction between motive and intent Il and he declared that criminal intent I n essential in proving the commission o n a crime.
 l, During MT. Jeromes reply to the ar 1T guments for MT. Perkins Justice Green t. baum asked: Do you maintain that l. is unlawful to contribute the funds o le a company for such a purpose as Il covered by this case?"
 l. "Tne money of the policyholders of Yes" replied the district attorney of But do you say that of contribution r. from any sort of a company?' le "Oh. as to limited liability compan SS ~NA Id family are the only stockholders, mo- sd said Mir. Jerome. "But with any grea xt corporation or trust company Isay it
 immoral in the highest degree to diver e. its funds without the consent Of ever i- party in interest"
 h. Have you any authorities to submi rs it support of that view-any authorltie St relating to any similar acts or gifts, t
 other than political organizations?' Ill q have not. We have searched dill ID gently. but this appears to be the frs It instance of such an issue having arisel at It would appear that your honor wi ue have to pass upon the question as e. whether there was a felonious atteml he without the assistance of such author
 ties"
 ad MT, Jerome assured Justice Greer 100 baum that the papers in the case wel al correct and that the entire proceedin
 in the case was in accordance with la ve and custom