Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-03-27
NOT PROPER FOR STATE
TO "P0UNCE" UPON THAN
Two Justices OF Appellate Division Of
Supreme Court Express
Their Doubt.
DECISION LIKELY NEXT WEEK
Question at Issue Declared to BE Not
So Much Return of Prisoner to
Matteawan as Maintaining Honor
Of Commonwealth OF New York.

| NEW YORK, March o6.-Two jus
Supreme Court agreed to-day that
there WAS doubt in their minds
whether the State OF New York would
be within It's rights in "pouncnE'' on
Harry X. Thaw after his acquittal here
on the conspiracy charge on which he
was extradited from New Hampshire
and returning him to the State Hos
pital for the Criminal Insane at Mat
teawan. They were Justice Ingraham.
| presiding, and Justice Scottwho voiced
their doubts. while Franklin kennedy.
special deputy attorney-Eeneral was
urging before the appellate division
against an appeal taken by Thaws
counsel from decision OF Supreme
Court Justice Page, refusing a motion
: 10 return Thaw TO New Hampshire.
Counsel for Thaw already had pre-
sented their arguments, based on the
contention that Thaw. having been ex-
tradited from New Hampshire to an
swer to conspiracy charge, and hav-
ing been freed of that charge, should
be returned to the State from which
he was eXtradited.
| Mr.. Kennedy contended that even
though Thaw had been acquitted. the
fact remained that he now was within
New York's jurisdiction; and that as
the original commitment upon which
ne was sent TO Mateawan still was
valid. he should he returned there
Justice 1ngraham interrupted Mr.
Kennedy to say:
Il am in doubt as TO the rights OF the
State of New York to pounce upon
Thaw. following his acquittal Of crime,
and then return him to the State Hos
pital for the Criminal Insane at Mat
teawan. | believe most citizens Of this
State would regard such action as
dishonorable."
JUSTICE SCOTT AGREES
WITH JUSTICE INGRtHAM
Justice Scott agreed with Justice In
graham. and informed Mr.. Kennedy
that the question at issue was not so
much the return OF Thaw TO Mattea-
wan as maintaining the honor OF the
State Of New York.
| Upon the conclusion Of arguments
decision was reserved. 1t was con-
sidered probable by attorneys that an
opinion would be handed down next
! week.
Deputy Attorney General Franklin
Kennedy submitted lengthy brief
The first point made in 1t was that
! in interstate rendition an eXtradited
person. once within the Jurisdiction
Of the demanding State. Is subject both
TO It's criminal and civil process Many
cases were quoted to cover this point
| The second point. briefly touched on
was that the principle laid down in
the case OF Lascclles against Georgia
is applicable to Thaws commitment
to Matteawan, and the authorities Of
Matteawan. therefore, had the right
Immediately on his acquittal recently
on the conspiracy charge for which he
was brought here, to take him into
custody under such commitment
Thaws attorneys contended 1t was
! improper and unlawful for the state
al fter Thaw's acquittal OF the criminal
charge. to make use OF his presence
to confine him In Matteawan. After
Thaw left New York State they
claimed there was no way by which
the State officials could cause his re-
turn except by charging him with Il
crime. and it had been shown that his
escape from Matteawan was not a
crime.