New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-02-27
6. ". PERKINS WINS.
NOT GUILTY or Larceny.
Court Of AppeaIs Dirided on Cam
paign Contribution Case.

pqign Contribution Case.
Albany. Feb 2G-By a divided court. voting
To 3 the Court Of Appeals to-day sustained
the judgments Of the courts below that George
" Perkins as a vice-president of the New
York Life Insurance Company. was not guilty.
OF larceny in the use Of funds Of the company
for. contributions 70 the Republican campaign
fund in 1894 The decision Of the court sustains
also the expressed opinion Of District Attorney
Jerome that whatever the moral and ethical
aspects n 1Ir. Perkirs's action ii was not
criminal under any existing statute.
Judges Cray. O'Brien. E T. Bartlett and His
cock concur in the judgment Of the court, the
prevailing opinion being by Cray, With con-
curing opinion by FIiscock CHIEF Judge Cullen
ard Judges Werner and Chase dissent Cullen
and Werner writing opinions Chase concurriTG
with Cullen
The dissenting opinion Of Chief Judge Cullen
IS especially severe in its characterization Of
the use Of the oompany's money for political
contributions.
The case came up or the relation Of Per
kins agt. Magistrate Moss, Edward Reardon.
a peace officer, and the People of the State, as
appellants Justice Greenbaum dismissed writs
of habeas corpus and certiorari, remanding Mr.
Perkins for trial but the Appellate Division
reversed this decision. The decision to-day af-
firms the order OF the Appellate Division, and
declares Magistrate Moss without jurisdiction
in the case. no crime appearing from the facts
stipulated.
All the opinions agree that the expenditure
of the money Of the New York Life for cam
paign purposes was illegal and improper. Juduge
Gray in the majority opinion, says;
II is unouestionably true that the purpose for
which the moneys Of The company were prom.
ised was foreign the chartered purposes OF
the corporation. but that fact does not make the
he inn
of indirectly promoting the corporate alters
through the supposed advantage Of the contlh-
uance in power Of the Republican a qlil4IlsI "a,
ton purged the act OF immortality, and 1t Lacked
the criminal intent
Further in his opinion, Judge Gray says:
moral obligation should he none the less
authoritative in the conducts OF life mat II IS
binding only upon the conscience of the person
as d1tv and is imperfect in law from the alb
sence Of legal sanction. Courts, however, may
not sit TO judge the conduct of the defendant by
any moral code or rules of ethics. Their sphere
is TO ascertain if the facts shown establish the
crime charged against him. In the facts stated
in these dispositions / ma none upon M ,i..ai
criminality can be predicated Inc eSselll91 d;
element Of the intent to deprive and defraud
is nowhere be found, and there is no Just
basis for the inference That the relator may
have made a mistake of law, which Will not re-
Iieve him from liability in civil action. may De
true and he expressly disclaims in his letter any
Intention 10 dispute such liability but this
was a case where intent good faith was IN
issue and then knowledge Of the law Is ma
teral.
Judge Gray holds finally. that the facts
showed that the design to injure. the motive
10 despon the company, the wrongful purpose
were all lacking in the Information which was
laid before The magistrate" and therefore the
warrant and all proce edings under it were alb
soluteIy void"
Judge Hiscock, concu-rins with Judge Gray.
says IL part:
There is wanting every one of those circum-
stances Of personal gain. furtVe secrecy IN ti-e
commission IF the act and Of concealnehl aILer
commission which. as essential clements, oidl-
nariy attend the crime OF larceny ana II
there is any evidence here 81 q crlnllno! intent
Il IS found simply and solely in the fact that the
officers Of the corporation have contributed
some yf its funds 10 an unauthorized purpose.
Chief Judge Cullen. dissenting. says in part:
The meritorioUs character Of the objects to
which the money was appropriated has no Dear
ing upon the question Of larceny. The glst OF
that offence IS not the application Of money TO
bad purpose, but taking money that does noI
belong 10 The taker, 20 appropriate 10 an obJect,
coed or baG. Il is the fraudulent deprivation Of
owner Of his property that constitutes lar
ceny. II is a crime to steal, even though with
the intent TO give away in charity and relieve
distress.
The voluntary character Of the admission Of
the act charged against him is doubtless to he
considered the question % his good faith, but
the weight TO be accorded ii may depend very
much the circumstances under which IL was
made IT, when the charge was first publicly
made that the money Of the company had been
appropriated for political contribution, the re-
latOr admitted the fact and justified II. his con-
duct would be potent Il not conclusive evidence
IN his favor. The offence is charged to have
been committed in December 1904: the rela- or 6
declaration was made in March. 1909 If. dur
ing this interval there was a complete eNpos'r"
Of the transaction. upon evidence taken before
some tribunal or legislative body. of such bon
elusive character to render denial futile
and unavailing. the voluntary character of the
REALTORS admission might be deprived Of its
merits Any clever offender might under sim
flar circumstances. not unn9turallY adopt the
same course OF tho circumstances under which
the admission was made have. however no
knowledge, but az examination before the
magistrate these circumstances would appear.
The charge against the relator is not that he
paid money TO Bliss and received It back from
the company. by the authority 0. the corpora
ton. but that the payment and repayment were
de hon hi arr- l,Lc-if