New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-05-03
BOTH WIN IN HYDE CASE
Decision Has the Rare Merit of
Pleasing All Around.
DENY WRIT OF PROHIBITION
Whitman Claims a Victory, While
Steuer Declares 1t Is Just
What He Wanted.

The Appellate Division Of the Supreme
Court in Brooklyn handed down a decision
yesterday in the case OF Charles H. Hyde.
the former city Chamberlain, which has
the rare merit Of pleasing both sides The
writ Of prohibition restraining Justice
Woodward from taking further action on
the writ of habeas corpus issued by him is
denied. but District Attorney Whitman
who asked for the writ. regards the deci-
sion as a victory Max ID. Steuer. counsel
for Hyde. says that the District Attorney
is welcome to the victory, and he hopes
there will be lots like It,
Il regard the decision as a victory fer
this Office said District Attorney Whit
man, upon question OF law and proceed
! ure Of vital Importance to the efficient i'd
minstration OF the criminal law I'm this
county"
The District Attorney bases his opinion
on the fact that the Appellate Division
takes the same view of Section % Of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, upon which his
request for a writ OF prohibition was found
ed. as does the District Attorney. and holds
that the case OF Hyde is cognizable before
the Supreme Court i'm New York County.
and that he cannot remove himself from
the Jurisdiction OF that court by habeas
corpus. But the court dismisses the writ
saying: II infer that IL Mr. Justice Wood
ward were moved. as In effect he was, to
dismiss the writ or to make II returnable
as the statute requires, had he not been
cnjoined. he would have reached the present
conclusion aided by the earnest discussion
and industrious research that were fur
nished TO this court"
In other words, had Justice Woodward
begun proceedings on the writ of habeas
corpus there might be some grounds for
issuing a writ Of prohibition, but as all he
did was TO issue a writ of habeas corpus
returnable before him for a prisoner con-
fined in another county while the Supreme
Court of that country was I'm session. II
was still conceivable that when the writ
was returned before him he intended to
transfer 1t to justice in the county where
the prisoner was confined.
It was a question OF some moment to the
District Attorney, for II Section % of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. forbidding the
issuance OF such writs. were held to be I'M
constitutional n Justice Of the Supreme
Court at the opposite end OF the state might
issue a writ which would demand that a
prisoner In the Tombs awaiting trial he
taken before him that he might decide
whether he were unawfully restrained.
Mr. Steuer appeared amused at the idea
that there was a victory for any one but
his client concealed In the decision rem
dered yesterday.
The writ was dismissed. wasn't it, he
d. IA pf n q
for us All that we wanted was an oppor-
tunity 10 get some court To decide whether
or not We had a right 10 examine the pro-
ceedings OF the grand jury before the case
was called for trial and determine whether
or not there was sufficient evidence to JUS
tiry the return OF an indictment. And that's
Just the right that this decision gives us.
As TO whether or not the Appellate Di-
vision presumed that Justice Woodward
would have transferred the case TO a New
York justice that phase OF the matter Is
immaterial / certainly do not understand
the decision 10 give that advice. but mat
does not concern us. All that We want IL
TO get a hearing before some Judge Whe;h- !
81 he IL In Brooklyn or New York
makes no difference I am not In the bust
ness of choosing judges ! do not say this
Judge is unfair because he presidcs In New
York or that one fair because his court is
I'm Brooklyn II the District Attorney has
any evidence against any Judge he should
take steps toward his removal. ! am sure !
that We have no preference as to whether
the writ OF habeas corpus is argued I'm
Brooklyn or New York. II the District
Attorney regards that decision as a victory
he Is welcome to it. hope he has lots Of
them
Just before special panel Of five hundred !
taIesmen was To report to Justice Davis IN !
the criminal Branch of the Supreme Court |
early last month 10 try the former 'ity |
Chamberlain on an indictment for bribery |
In the Carnegie Trust Company affair. |
IIydc's bondsman surrendered him. He was !
in the Tombs only short timJ before lie |
was released on "A writ OF habcaS corpus !
issued By Justice Woodward, Of Brooklyn |
District Attorney Whitman applied To the |
APPELLATE Division I'm this county for n writ |
of prohibition, and was referred To Bro Dk- |
Ivn Meantime, while decision was re- !
served by the Brooklyn Appellate Division |
the term Of Justice Davis, for whom HIDE |
has expressed an aversion. was adjourned !
Tn. assignment for this month in the |
Criminal Branch of tho Supreme Court VIII !
probably lie announced to-day.