New-York tribune., 1912-01-09
.HYDE'S MOTION IS DENIED.
Justice Lehman Says Defendant
Can Have Fair Trial Here.
WILL APPEAL, SAYS LAWYER
Court Declares Newspapers
Have Not Created an At
mosphere of Prejudice.

Charles II. Hyde's motion for change
of venue for his approaching trial was de-
! MED yesterday by Justice Lehman, WEose
opinion is that the defendant can have a
/ fair and impartial trial In this county, in
! spite OF the arguments advanced against
that proposition by Mr.. Hyde's moving pa
pers and afdavits.
There is every prospect that the motion
| will be taken to the Appellate Division,
was the comment of John B. StanchheId,
| who argued for the motion for Hyde before
J Justice Lehman and who remains as his
| counsel on the motion for the change OF
| venue.
| Later District Attorney Whitman said
that he had been Informed by Max ID.
Steuer who had been Of counsel for Hyde,
! that the decision on the motion for
I change of venue would be carried to the
Appellate Division. Mr. Whitman viii file
motion to-day for hearing for spe-
ciaI panel. and that motion will be argued
on Thursday. unless the appeal holds II up.
! II the appeal on the motion is filed 1t VIII
/ he argued before the Appellate Division
probably on either January 10 or Febru-
airy q II p decision is handed down with
in two weeks the last obstruction will he
and I'm that event. II the Appellate Division
upholds Justice Lehman's decision on the
motion for a change Of venue. Hyde prob
! ably will be brought 10 the bar before Jus
tice Vernon NJ. Davis I'm the criminal
| branch of the Supreme Court, the same
court before which both Reichmann and
Cummins were convicted.
II Is understood that Hyde. though dis
appointed at the decision Of Justice Leh-
man. feels that the decision as handed
down supports the facts as presented by
his counsel even If It does not support
his conclusion and believes that his mo-
ton will he granted on appeal. The courts
decision says:
Upon all the conditions disclosed. have
therefore reached the conclusion that, Whlle
the newspapers have IN many instances
Improperlv sought To- prejudice the case. AMI
there f. a considerable body or ihoughtless
persons who have accepted the statements
OF the charges as proof Of their truth. they
have created no general atmosphere 81
prejudice which might subtly ana uncoil
sciouSly influence the minds Of the jurors
and I am confident that there SHis's IN tae d
fendant Is guilty and should be punished;
I feel that he can safely go 10 trlal anu anu
secure a jury capahl" o' reachlng an III
partial verdict and Of giving 10 the ac-
cused the benefit Of the presumption OF ~
noccure with which the law seeks to shield
him. Motion f.. therefore. denied.
In another part of the decision. which
covered thirteen typewrtten pages, Justice
Lehman comments thus upon the attitude
Of the public:
The general public I'm this city is more
inclined 10 regard proved charges with
undue levity than to give undue "elEht 10
charges of which tho accused Is preSuinP-
lively innocent
The much discussed Tiden AFFIDAVIT Jus
tice Lehman practically dismlss"s with tie
comment that It's value is questionable, be
cause II does not mention how many PER
eore might have been interviewed who gave
comment favorable 90 the defendant
Fydc's argument. by AFFIDAVIT. that the
Gardner trial initiated against the chance
Of fair trial for him, the court wiped out
with the answer that Gardner. In spite nj
all publicity. was acquitted practically on
the testimony ~ Hyde himself The de-
clsion adds:
So far as the connection ~ the accused
with tho administration Of the present
MAYOR f. concerned, Il seems 10 me quito
cl dent that the absolutely unqualified be
lief of the entire city in the personal non non,
csty Cf the chief oNccutiv" mas reacted
fayOrably upon the defendant.
herlain's Office viii not prejudice any juror
against him. the court says, but rather II
viii be looked upon as having been neccs-
sity. II HYDE wished To conform 10 proper
sense Of civic propricty
The point raised by Hydc's motion, that
the Rcichmann and Cummins convictions
have made Il impossible to get fair trial
here, together with the point that any jury
I'm this county would be OF taxpayers. who
might feel that as stockholders in the cor
poration OF the city they were trying the
case Of a man VINO had taken their money,
justice Lehman dismisscs IN these words:
Jury can certainly be obtained I'm this
CITY. without including any juror personally
Interested in the failure Of either the
Northern Bank or the Carnegie Trust Com
pany. II does not appear that the city mas
lost any money by reason OF the deposits
made by the defendant In the Northern
Bank / can find absolutely no basis for
tho claim that there IS any probability that
the defendant cannot obtain "A idir trial by
the taxpayers Of this county.