New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-05-17
NV TRIAL FOR HYDE
PRACTICALLY FREES HIM
,.cision by the Appellate DIvi-
' .;on Makes Another Effort to
Convict Improbable.
.y.cHAMBERLAIN PLEASED
,.,scted Such a Decision, He
cavs at Long Island Home
Iustices Write Widely
Varying Opinions.

.,vsrsine yesterday tho judgment
..,t,g Charles n. Hyde OF receiving
- ~. the Appellate Division practically
80 former city Chamberlain free.
- .,,,oprh the court ordered a new
SWEPT away the foundations Of
osople's case. II is considered unlike
hat District Attorney Whitman viii
% hiring HYDE 10 trial again.
n, HYDE at his home in Roslyn. Long
80 said last night that he had ex-
tod such a decision.
q, speaks for itself" he said. 1T IS
- gratifying 10 me. do not care 10
-.ts any further comment on it."
Does il change your plans for the
,.,,rs in any wav?" he was asked.
y have made no plans for the future
.hs strength AZ IT," was his reply.
r,srs seems a remote possibility that
-. an,sllate Division. which voted IMAM
,-o,siv for a reversal. will permit Mr..
r,,,man 10 take the case TO the Court
=, ANNALS. since the FIVE justices enter
..,s5 2 great diversity of opinion on the
..,c,ral points raised Justice Clarke,
.so wrote the majority opinion. contend
u that IN failing % show wherein Hyde
"a benefited by perSuading Robin TO lend
mao TO the Carnegie Trust Company
,,s prosecution had failed TO prove that
crime had been committed.
b.,ce Mclaughlin. who concurred in
,,s opinion. as did Justice Scott. wrote
., ooipion Of his own in which he in
,sss that Robin. as the giver OF the
,-se was an accomplice in the alleged
crime and therefore. as a witness, should
.svs been corroborated if his testimony
vss 10 count. Justices Clarke and Scott
agreed with Justice Mclaughlin.
Crime Committed, He Says.
Bot presiding Justice lngraham dis
,rsed with both these views. He not
o-ly eontended that crime had been
committed on the evidence. but also
ns, Robin could not be considered an
,eromplice. on this latter point he ex-
rssssd himself as follows:
n Robins testimony is true. and the
uy has accepted Il. this bride, or the
lsynent Of money from the Northern
Bank was extorted from him by threats
ia serious injury 10 the bank OF which
b was an officer and a promise Of adj
vantage II he would sccede 10 the demand
q me defendant. He was not more Of an
sNOmplice. as I view this testimony.
than a person is an accomplice who is
NJ by a robber and parts with his
property at the point OF a pistol"
Justice Ingraham concurred IN the re-
rsrsal because. he said. there was "er-
nr which requires rs 10 order a new
msl" but he did not specify I'm what the
gTW consisted.
Justice Mclaughlin also wrote an opin-
im 10 which he agreed with Justice In
rahsm that 1t was not necessary 10 show
EIDE as the recipient Of a definite per
va advantage in return for his Of
81 action, that the favor 10 his friend
unmlns, chief spirit I'm the Carnegie
Absi directorate. was a sufficient con-
@t'suon OF value 10 comply with the
"a definition Of bribery. He agreed
iso that Robin could not be considered
an sceomplice under the law. But he
fonisnded that the evidence did not show
crime had been committed beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Question Only OF Motive.
The acts with which Hyde was charged.
Z coniended, were entirely lawful in
themselves His meeting with Cummins.
A'ehmann and Robin. his persuasion Of
"'on 10 lend the Carnegie Trust Com
Jay El5oe 600 and his subsequent addition
ne balance Of city money in the
NNinsrn Bank-aH Of these. Justice
Nlghhn wrote were innocent transac-
u'as IN themselves and might well have
zen performed FOR the benefit Of the city.
'a's II vas decidedly to the city's ad-
''l'sse that the Carnegie Trust Com
1nys doors be kept open.
a. simmered down then. he thought.
he question Of motive. and he did not
O'soer The evidence strong enough 10
1--WE beyond reasonable doubt that the
e'ehoants motive was the wrong and
=" me night one. lie accounts for the
,''49 on the ground that Hyde preju-
nv MS case before the jury by his ''un-
,-''sSiul effort 70 prove that he was not
MS ONCE al the time when Robin
TN"
DsIiet Attorney Whitman did not fee
1'seled 10 make definite announce
~. III before the Appellate Division On
~ us order IN the case.
mares II. futile. Of Davies. Auerbach
.~hsh who prepared the brief on APP
the HYDE case called the decision
1esF vindicatior Of Hyde lie said
his opinion II left the District
'Dhey no loophole through which he
- force second trial. Hyde is out
'aaT $4,000 bail.
ENGLAND HAS BIG BOOM