New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-12-16
CUMM|NS TO LEAVE THE
TOMBS ON BAIL TODAY
Carnegie Trust Company FInan-
Cier Gets Certificate of
Reasonable Doubt.
LIKE THE REICHMANN CASE
Justice Cohalan Bases Issuance
on Compulsion to Testify
Before the Grand
Jury.

Jury.
Justice Cohalan issued a certificate OF
| rea Sonable doubt TO William ]. Cum
Minis. the convicted chairman OF the eX-
ccutive committee of the Carnegie Trust
| Company. Yesterday. and Cummns. who
was sentenced 10 four years imprison-
ment FOR the larceny of $4,000 from
| the Nineteenth Ward Bank. which was
allied with tho trust company. will be
released from the Tombs on bail this
morning He now awaits the decision
of the Appellate Division Of the Supreme
Court on his appeal from his convic-
ton.
The application for the certificate was
made by counsel for Cummns on 400 or
100 objections which were made on the
trial before Justice Davis, in the Crimi-
nal Branch Of the Supreme Court. The
chief contention Of the defence in the
motion was that the constitutional rights
of Cummins were infringed upon ana
his case greatly pretudiced when he was
compelled By Justice Davis 10 testify
before the grand jury on matters which
directly bore on bis case
Justice Cohalan said Of this in his
opinion, handed down with the certlf-
cate: The District Attorney, with his
assistants, has shown commendable
zeal in the investigation and the prose-
cution OF the Carnegie Trust cases, but
whether or not he can go as far as he
has gone in the eXamnatio Of an in
dicted person before trial is q matter of
doubt which must be determined by the
Appellate Division" II was solely on
this ground that the court issued the
certificate.
Cummins is the second Of the high Off
Gals Of the Carnegie Trust Company
who has been convicted and been re-
leased on q certificate Of reasonable
doubt because of the methods used In
obtaining the indictments. The other
was Joseph b. Rechmann, who was
president of the trust company. He is
now under bail pending an appeal on
certificate issued by Justice Page, who
severely arraigned the District Attorney
in his opinion when he issued the GER
tificate.
Justice Cohalan said: IF Reichmann
was entitled to a certificate of reason
able doubt on this ground, clearly the
defendant herein should receive such a
certificate. The people claim that the
matter of inquiry before the grand jury
was not connected with the larceny for
which the defendant had previously been
indicted. 1t cannot be gainsaid that the
whole subject matter of the inquiry was
based on the Carnegie Trust Company
disclosures, and on the trial practically
every phase Of that situation was COW
cred. The defendant was examined
upon matters which bore on the charge
for which he was indicted. The subject
Of the inquiry related i'm some way or
other in all these cases TO the Carnegie
Trust Company and the defendants re
lations with that institution"
Discussing the subject from the con-
stitutional point Of view. Justice Cohalan
said that there was no doubt, even if the
information ELECTED before the grand
Jury was not used on the trial of the
defendant. that the examination gave the
District Attorney broader knowledge
of Cummins's conduct in the manage
ment of the Carnegie Trust Company
and his other financial institutions
Justice Cohalan then took up the state
ment Of the defence that Cummins did
g,s ~ I.ro,,Co Of
rors committed. One OF the things that
operated 20 the prejudice Of Cummins. II
was said was the fact that the District
Attorney in his speech to the jury re-
ferred 10 Cummins twenty-siX times as
thief. Another contention was that
it was reversible error TO admit col
lateral issues involving Cummins's con-
nection with numerous other companies
DESPITE the objections Of counsel for the
defence
on these points the justice said: "Er-
rrrs may have crept into a case Of such
unusual length and complication. | pre-
fer 20 consider the first general ground
urged for granting this certificate. It is
that the defendant was compelled TO
submit himself TO an examination before
trial at the hands Of the District Attor-
ney under the ccmpulslon Of the process
Of the court and under the threat Of pun
ishment for contempt Of court. Here
there is an undoubted question Of law
raised, upon which ] am Of opinion
a reasonable doubt may be predicated
and which is sufficient for the consider
ton Of the Appellate tribunal"