The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-05-09
CRIME TO GIVE TO
POLITICAL FUND.
This Argument Made BY Jerome
and Untcri11cycr III Perkins
Case.
CASE NOW WITH THE COURT
Absolutely No Proof Of Fcllonious
Intent, Counscl for Defendant
Declares.
CASE NOW WITH THE COURT
nv Associated Prcss.)

by .ASSOClH lEu IlcSS.J
p NEW YORK. May S.--Argument was
begun to-day in the case Of George W.
Perkins In The appellate division Of the
Supreme Court Mr.. Perkins was for
tnerly vicc-prcsIdent of the New York
Life Insurance Company. He was taken
before the court In March on charge
brought to test the question whether the
making OF political contributions from
Insurance company funds constitutes o
crime. The case now comes before tho
appellate division on an appeal from q
ruling by Justice Greenbaum that such
contributions constitute larceny
Judge Cohen, Of counsel for Perkins,
contendcd that there Is not sufficient
legal evidence to Justify the magistrate
in assuming Jurisdiction in this case.
and that tho property taken was con-
tributed for the benefit Of It's true
owners Judge Cohen said that II the
court held that In campaign contribn-
lions the property was not taken for tho
benefit OF Its true owners then the proper
course OF action would be a civil suit TO
recover It.
"T'he chief question:" said Judge Cohen.
SIS one Of intent, and there is absolutely
no proof OF felonious Intent"
What Jerome Says.
District Attorney Jerome made an ar
SuIucUL III Sup)OlL u UuottAS NIiCCHOhulH .
decision.
Such an expenditure as this contribu-
tion" lie said, IL brought to the atten-
ton OF the courts, would no doubt have
been prohibited by Injunction. To take
property Of those policyholders who are
of an opposite political party; to take
the money OF persons whose families
will have to rely upon It for support to
advance the interests Of party to which
r. 4, 1,r,1p
fundamental ethical concepts Of this COM
munity. think that such course must
be opposed by any right-mindcd man."
las showing the criminal intent, a great
deal of discretion resides in the courts.
maintain that It Is sufficient to prove
that there was a moral evil to prove that
there wasfelonious intent"
Court Reserves Decision.
Further arguments against Mr.. Per-
1ns's appeal was made by Mr.. Inter
meyer. who said that Mr.. Perkins, being
vice-presldent Of the company and chair
man Of the Finance Committee was just
as responsible for tho disbursement OF
money as the president himself. Sow
cral times during his argument, Mr..
Unter,ncyer was interrupted by ques-
.tions from Justice Ingraham. Once the
justice asked: aaT
Does the statute make the receiving
OF money crime?''
1T makes the taking of money a
crime 1t makes the appropriation Of
property by others than the owners a
crime" was the reply.
VI At another Il time Justice llngraham
asked whether any one WHO (. should set
money from a corporation to which he
was not entitled committed crime. Mr..
Untermeyer said:
IF the person who receives money
wrongfuly from. a corporation stands in
the relation Of trustee to that cnrpo-
ration and to those interested in its as
sets then, If there be criminal intent is
q crime
Mr.. Delafcld. OF counsel for Perkins,
also spoke briefly
The court reserved decision.