The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1911-03-09
He IS ON BAIL IN PRISON
BONDSM ~ CAN'T PRODS(E
MtRRiN TO SAVE THE BOND.
Swirdtcr sentenced In state Court Here
Pending Appeal From Con,iction IN
Fedora, Court In Ph,indclph,a -l Z ncic
Sam VIII Probably Take I,,m Over.


Supreme Court Justice Gavegan denied
yesterday an application for an order
directing the warden OF Auburn prison.
where Frank G. Marin is serving a sem
tence of from fifteen to twenty years. to
deliver Marin over to the United States
District Court in Philadelphia. where he
was convicted for swindling and SEN
fenced to four years Imprisonment before
he was convicted here. The court said
he thought the Federal authorities in
Pennsylvania have the first call on Marin.
but advised that the United States Court
is the one to order Marin TAX en- to Phla-
delphia from the New York State prison
The application is the first of the kind
to be made in the local courts and is said
to be the first in the State. II was made
jointly by the American Surety Company
and Walter Westlake. as administrator
Of the estate Of Mrs. Caroline Barry. The
Federal authorities took no part in the
application.
Marin was a successful lawyer in
Philadelphia in 1895 and one Of his clients
was Mrs. Barry. She gave him $50
to invest for her and Marin handed over
lot OF bogus mortgages and fed. In
1898 Marin appeared in Philadelphia
under the name Of Judge Frank lin Stone.
bought lot of property there with Mrs.
Barry's money. and put it in the name
OF Amelia Stone his wife He was the
head Of the Storey Cotton Company.
which collapsed in 1905 with a loss of
over 81 900 600 to persons who had bought
stock expecting big dividends. Marin
and his confederates fed. but they we're
all indicted and in l90a Marin was caught
in Buffalo hotel. He was put on trial
and after conviction was sentenced to
four years in the Eastern Penitentiary.
He appealed. and the American Surety
Company gave $4,000 bail for him on
appeal.
While the case was on appeal Marin
came to New York and opened law office
without much secrecy at Fortieth street
and Sixth avenue. When District At
torney Clarke OF Kings county heard that
Marin was in town he took policeman
around Marrin's haunts one night and had
him locked up on an old Kings county
indictment. Marin protested that Mrs.
Barry was dead and nothing could be
proved against him. but when he was tried
In Kings county he was convicted and sent |
10 Sing Sing for not less than fifteen years. |
1t was after that that Marrins convic- |
ton In Philadelphia was affirmed by the |
United States Court Of Appeals and when !
he surety company could not produce |
him because he was in State prison the |
Government moved TO collect the $40, 900 |
bail. In the meantime the administra-
'or Of Mrs. Barry's estate had got back |
more than half the money she had lost
md had attached the bail on total judg-
nent for Sl29,828 against Marin
Both the surety company and the ad-
ninistrator Of the Barry estate united |
n making the application in order that
oy the surrender Of Marin to the Federal
the bail might be saved. They
BASED their application upon the clause
II the Constitution Of the United States
elatng to the taking OF property without
iue process Of law. and set forth that since
he Federal courts convicted Marin first
md had never parted with the custody
Il him he must be delivered up by the
state Of New York which took him under
to which the Government
vas not party.
The case was before Justice Gavegan
N writ of certiorari instead Of habeas
orpus to save the necessity of bringing
iarrn before the court. and the court
greed with the contention Of the peti-
toner's that the Federal right to Marin
) prior to the States. Justice Gavegan
uled, however. that because Of the rela-
ions existing between the State and Fed
raj courts the application should be made
rst to the Federal Court and the applica-
ion il denied solely on the ground Of want
{ power to grant She application in ad-
ance cf proceedings before the Federal ,
ourt. " that court holds that sufficient ,
over exists in the State court and that ,
ne application was properly made in the
tate court the application may be re-
ewed in the Supreme Court