New-York tribune., 1906-06-13
JEROME TO KEEP AT 1t.
GR4NNISS CASE Il TEST.
District attorney to Take Up Insur-
ance Matters after Tacat1on-

rroda under which Robert A. Granniss, formerly
yice-president of the Mutual Life Insurance
Company has been indicted for forgery In the
third degree is upheld by the higher courts. it
may be possible TO indict officials of other life
insurance companies. and. indeed officials OF
scores of corpo-ations according TO the views OF
a we'll known lawyer.
District Attorney Jerome in statement yes
terday said that when he returned from MS
vacation other phases OF the Mutual Life wouio
be taken up and he would then proceed to IN
vestigate the New York life. the Equitable ana
other insurance companies.
The indictment for forgery against Mr. Gran
Miss is likely to be a test case. which VIII inter
est the officials of every corporation which is
Obliged by law to make reports to state county
and municipal officials. The question to be de-
ctded is whether or not such report can be
called an account" in the meaning of the stat
ute.
The indictment is brought under Subdivision 3
of Section 515 of the Penal Code. which reads:
person who with intent to defraud to con-
eeal az any larceny or m ~ enx ot5 to
make true entry of every material particular In any
or kept BY him or under his direction is guilty OF
forgery in the third degree.
Reports have generally been considered to
come under a law which makes false statements
in them a misde1neanor. But there Is a big
the third degree and that for misderneanor
The penalty for the first is imprisonment for
not less than five years. There is no alternative
fine The penalty for q misdemeanor Is a years
Imprisonment, $500 fine. both.
1t was explained yesterday that Just what was
wone in the report Of the Mutual or 1904 which
formed the basis for the indictments against
Granniss. this: 1t seems that there Rad
been depreciation in the real estate during
&l,o 80 +l.sx,r
been a profit from the sale and maturity OF
ledger assets during the year Of 81 0oS %.
So as not to have the depreciation item appear
on the debit side OF the ledger, certain officials
or a committee OF the trustees. 1t is said, got
together and decided that the depreciation IN
real estate had exactly equalled the profits on
ledger assets. Thus making balance they
were checked off and neither appeared in the
report.
1t seems that the depreciation and the profits
on ledger assets appeared in their proper places
on the books of the company. The argument OF
the officials, II IS said is that they understood
the profits to be net profits. and as the gross
profits had been wiped out by depreciation IN
real estate also ledger assets, 1t was not neceS-
sary to put in either item. The lawyer VINO
brought up the point that If this Granniss
Indictment is upheld, it would be possible to
reach officials of other corporations. said:
do not believe that a statement in a report can
section defining forgery in the third degree. But, If
such construction is TO be upheld then 9fnciais aus
way in which the items in their reports are ar
ranged.
There are no allegations in the indictment
that there was any intent to defraud or TO con-
ceaI any larceny or misapproprauon of any
money or property"
It was suggested yesterday that possibly An
drew c. Fields had not yet received immunity
from the District Attorney. and that it had been
promised to him only under certain conditions
which had not yet been fulfilled. AS soon as
former Assistant District Attorney Cans of
counsel for Fields learned that some indict-
ments were TO be handed down. he jumped into
a cab and made all haste to the Criminal Courts
Building. It is argued that If he were perfectly
sure that Fields was not to be indicted he would
not have been so anxious.
Not much attention will be paid to prepar-
ing indictments for bribery grand larceny in
the subsequent insurance investigation because
it would be difficult to get the legal proof to
tain them. Forgery will be the offence to which
particular attention VIII be paid.
In talking about the insurance investigation
yesterday District Attorney Jerome said 1t had
been his aim to get only such indictments as
would be sustained by the upper courts, al
though men Of prominence IN the legal profess
them" He referred to the great number of con-
victions under the indictments obtained by Gov
ernor Folk of Missouri which upset one
after the other in the upper courts. He added:
Now what was the cause OF this? Simply that
the evidence, the legal evidence, not produced
to prove the crimes charged. The community was
convinced, everybody was convinced that
rule against the public sentiment. Now, in these
insurance IT required small time con-
had been wrongdoing, Two days Of the sessions
facts that were presented then. should have been
willing TO stake my decision in any business mat
ter but in the matter of law It was all different
The Armstrong committee on its part, did not go
ness was done when they had turned UP the patent
wrongdoing. But to prove the thing legally
far different.
The District Attorney referred to the difficulty
frequently experienced in perfecting an indict-
ment because of the lack of one man. For in
stance. at one time they wanted evidence that
could be given by Fields in a minute, but Fields
not available at that time. There were
many such instances. Then he added:
Then we suddenly coming face to face with
facts we had not suspected. In the case of the
accounts, which passed through the auditing com
mittee. How could we know at the outset that
as this we had to turn a once 10 find the men
whose testimony was essential to prove the things
doubt in rnlnds-the whole thing was clear.
bat was needed to supply the proof that
TO find the man he away. of town per-
haps not by design. but Just in the course of
whatever IT might be, until we could get him and
get his testimony.
The District Attorney said he did not think it |
would have been possible TO have undertaken |
other Investigations at the same time 'It re- |
ouired the closest attention on the thing I'm