The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1906-03-31
CASE WITHOUT PRECEDENT

CASE WITHOUT PRECEDENT
Mr.. jerome Maintains That the Justice
Will Have to Pass Originally On
Question of Criminal
Intent.
New York, March 3O.-Arguments in
the habeas corpus proceedings in the
case of George W Perkins. former vice
president of the New York Life Insur-
anee company, who is charged in war
rant issued by Magistrate Moss with the
larceny of $4S,702 belonging to the policy
holders of the New York Life, which
he advanced to Cornelius y. Bliss treas
urer of the republican national commit
tee, were made today before Justice
Greenbaum in the state supreme court
Decision was reserved.
Briefs will be filed Monday by contend
ing counsel and then Justice Greenbaum
will take the matter of the legality of
Mr.. Perkins arrest under advisement.
District Attorney Jerome argued for
the prosecution and former Judge Cohen
and Lewis Delafield appeared for the
defendant Justice Greenbaum took the
liveliest interest in the argument, and
constantly interrupted the lawyers with
pointed questions.
Says Criminal Intent Exists.
Mr.. Jerome said that criminal intent,
according to legal authorities, was to APP
pear from all the circumstances of the
case.
1.-THE question here" he continued, lis
as to the right of Mr.. Perkins to pay
the money of the policyholders to politi-
cal organization for the purpose of in
huencing the results of certain political
matters at the polls. This Is very far
from being a case where there Is an ao-
sence of moral guilt or turptude Shall
the officers of a corporation or a single
officer say take the money of the policy
holders; take your money and my money
and give it to a political party | say that
such an act is inherently wrong, whether
1t is prohibited by law or not. 1t Is con-
trary to public policy, contrary to pubic
morality and common decency. Half oil
the policyholders may have been demo-
Gratis, and to take their money to assist
the republican party certainly goes TO
the establishment of felonious intent.
Justice Greenbaum asked:
"If YOU maintain that this was an IL
legal act. under what classification do
you put it?'
Mr.. Jerome replied
y think that the payment was both
Illegal and immoral. l claim that it was
both, and that it was criminal"
Justice Draws Parallel.
Drawing a parallel in justice of the
pavment of money to the republican CAM
paign committee. Judge Cohen said that
president John A. Mccall of the New
York Life Insurance company had at
different times directed the payment OF
large sums of money for the relief or the
Johnstown flood sufferers, and Tor use in
a yellow fever epidemic in New orleans
These payments may have been outsiue
the vested authority of the president, ne
said, but surely not Illegal certainly NeiS
far from criminal
Mr. Mccall" he said "held great funds
in his possession, and he used them for
the public benefit. He believed sincerely
that when he directed the payment OF
this money to Mr.. Perkins, he was acting
for the best interests of the policyholders
of his company. Outside of his vested
authority, perhaps, but not illegal GER
tainly not criminal.
1t was then explained to the court
that Mr.. Perkins had advanced his per-
sonal funds to Mr.. Bliss and had been
repaid months afterwards by the New
York Life.
us it common sense asked Judge
Cohen ito charge man with having
stolen from another when he is repaid
his own? Mr.. Perkins believed he was
doing the best thing for his company,
and it is at his request that | make this
further statement"
Judge Cohen argued that none Of the
code definitions of larceny applied to
Mr.. Perkins case When he read the
clause dealing with improper payments
by officers. of corporations having con-
trol of such payments, Judge Greenbaum
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 statute; that
the only officers so included are those
who actually draw the checks?'
81 think that is the meaning of the
law" replied Judge Cohen.
$50 narrow as that?" commented JUS
tice Greenbaum.
81 think the purport of the law is as
sensible as that rejoined the lawyer.
Not Larceny Under Code.
Justice Greenbaum then asked whether
Judge Cohen thought that his interpre-
tation would shield from conviction of
larceny an officer who accepted money
wrongfully given to him or paid to him
by check by an officer having that au-
thority.
Judge Cohen said that II criminal wrong
doing was charged, it was covered by
other provisions of the penal code, but
he maintained that it would not be lar
oeny under the code. Justice Greenbaum
remarked:
"A mans motive may be perfectly good
and yet he may be guilty of crime"
Judge Cohen replied that there Is a