The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-11-01
DR.. GILLETTE OUT ON BAIL
INSTRANCE LNQUIKE ATTACKED
On APPEAL AR6CMEAY.

Cnsrs Pnzne @ Mhlrh alsc Curtlnr=as Is
ReasopabKp D~mbE In lnsue& N That
No Specific Crime WINS Under Iuves-
tignfhza Mhea Gamea1s Was lndlcfaa-
ARR having breu m tn Tonhs ainoe
ast Friday Dr. WAlrez r GIlatte, AZ
viuc-presahans oS the MufnaI Life Insurance.
Company, who wns canvictsh of perjury
for swearing falsely before tho Grand Jury
in tbs Insurance. investigation. vas releAsed
yesterday aftCrrcan on SlS.0ca hail Jun
cice Bowling bcfOrc Dr.. GIetts vas tried
granted a certificate OF reasonable doubt
Bail wHs furnished fer Dr. GaIlnStS BY
his sDn-tn-hw, Major Harrison X Bird
who was ON Gov OdelI7s stat He gavs
an security a house At 81 West Ffty-third
street Dr. Gillette went away with his
two SONS and two daughters in an anto-
mobile
EX-JustioO Edward W. Hatch argued
for DR.. Gillette that the Indictment IN which
DR.. Gillette was convicted was defective
and that Dr. Gillette could not have sworn
falsely a. he affirmed before the Grand
Jury. Justice Bowling says
Many reasons are urged In support OF the
application Of which but two seem to ma Of
sufficient moment to call for serious consid-
e~ration. The frst Of these Is thai the indict-
ment herein is defective In that 1t does not
comply with the provisions Of section 19t
Code of Criminal Procedure requiring thEt
in an indictment for perjury there shall be set
forth, among other things. the substance Of
the controversy or matter In respect which
the crime WA committed And 1t In urged
that under the decisions, which arc numer-
GUS and uniform and emAnate from many
State Jurisdictions ~ well ~ from the Federal
courts. this requirement is not complied with
by the language OF the Indictment herein.
This is based on the fact that the indictment
recites no specific crime or crimes N the sub
ject OF in vestigation by the Grand Jury at
the time when the testimony complained Of
was given. nor does IL set forth any specific
person or persons whose acts we're then be-
fore il for scrutiny. Its language is explicit
enough in that il sets forth that the Grand
Jury had pending before il in due form OF
law q certain investigation and inquiry for the
purpose, among other things, OF ascert aiming
whether officers or employees Of any de-
scription of life insurance companies in this
State nave lately violated in the county OF
New York the criminal laws of the State Of
New York and OF inquiring into all crimes by
any such officers or employees committed or
triable in the said county and presenting
them to the court"
This Ian guage seems to me TO sufficiently
forth the matter as TO which DEFENDANT
testimony was material to comply with the
statute. While my views expressed upon
The trial have not been altered by the exam
ofthe authorities. yet I believe they do
raise "A reasonable doubt as to whether this
judgment should stand.
Taking up the question Of the afirmanoe
Justice Downing said:
In my opinion the defendant was in no way
preiudiced by the variance. because he took
but one obligation before the Grand Jury.
and of it's nature we knew as much as the
foreman. and the legal effect OF that obliRa-
ton. whether an oath or an Affirmation, was
the same. In my opinion the defendant
was neither surprised by the proof that he
was affirmed before the Grand Jury and not
sworn. nor in any way preiudiced thereby.
here again l am referred 20 cases In
other Jurisdictions (tlie question apparently
never ha wing been heretofore decided here,
hold such a variance to be fatal to a
conviction.
And upon this point also 1t may well be said
that a reasonable doubt exists as TO the affirm
lnce OF this judgment.
II the contention is upheld that the gen.
eral investigation of insurance affairs by
the Grand jury was too vague IL will have
a bearing on the other insurance officials
who were indicted.