New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-06-19
THAw WINS JURY
TRIAL TO TEST HIS
PRESENT SANITY
Court of Appeals Upholds
Justice Hendrick for
Asking Advice.
HEARING HERE
NEXT TUESDAY
Favorable Verdict Means Muir
derer of Stanford White Will
Be Freed from MatteaWan.

Be Freed from MatteaWan.
Harry X. Thaw Is entitled TO a trial
by jury the Court of Appeals ruled
yesterday. The decision of Supreme
Court Justice Hendrick, which gave
the killer Of Stanford White the right
to have the question Of his mental con-
dition tested by jury, was Upheld.
Although Thaw had no mandatory
right to such a hearing, the Court OF
Appeals declared, the matter was at
the discretion Of the trial judge to
decide whether such a request should
be granted.
Tho Attorney General carried the
matter to the highest state court In
an effort to have Judge Hendricks mo-
ton reversed. It is believed among
LAWYERS that II will be impossible to
find a jury that will decide Thaw is
insane. II its verdict is in his favor
he will probably become a free man
again.
Thaw's trial will begin Tuesday.
Deputy Attorney Generals Frank X.
Cook and Alfred J. Becker said last
night that the state would not seek a
rehearing Of the motion upon which
the decision of the Court of Appeals
was handed down yesterday, but would
proceed TO try the case in the Supreme
Court next week.
1--WE have no comment to make" said
Mr.. Cook.
Thaw Is Jubilant.
Thaw was jubilant when he heard the
news in Ludlow Street jail. At the
Office of John B. Stanchfield, his attor-
nov. the decision was regarded as an
important victory in preliminary
"In effect, It was exactly what we
expected" said Mr.. Stanchfeld al
though we were ready 70 proceed with
the trial next week whichever way the
Court of Appeals decided"
at is plain" said the opinion, which
was written by Justice Frank II. HIS
cock. and concurred in by Justice;
! Chase, Miller, Cud6ebRck, hogan ana
/ Seabury, chat Mr. Justice Hendrlck
does not, by calling a jury, intend az
| ali 10 evade the burden and response
/ bility of ultimately deciding the issue
/ which has been raised, but simply in
/ tends to take the verdict Of such jury
| bv way of advice and aid in making
such ultimate decision and, therefore
| the question Is presented whether a
/ iustice. before whom such a proceed
/ ing is pending, has the power IN hls
discretion thus TO call TO his aid
| iurv. il being admitted that the relator
/ in the habeas corpus proceedings Is. not
| entitled as matter OF right TO jury
/ trial. r.
"The command Of the statute is for
q summary way of procedure. THIS
means that it shall be prompt and with
| out unreasonable and unnecessary de,
Law. Having in mind ordinary legal
procedure il doubtless means that there
/ shall be no long adjournments, that
/ sucb a proceeding shall not be placed
ON n calendar where it would not be
reached in some time; that 1t shall
/ have preference over other matters
| Rut Of course, some discretion must be
/ left TO the court or judge as to the
| time and mode of hearing even such
proceeding
! Jury, No Delay.
/ The question of whether the submis,
/ sion Of the question TO a jury to aid
/ the court in its decision would be
violation of the law might easily be de-
! cided by the circumstances OF par
! ticular case. the Court of Appeals de-
/ clared. II was its belief that the call
ING of a Jury would not be a cause fol-
delay. ,,
nj is not to be assumed that justice
would order such jury when such
case might lead to a violation OF the
statute, and there is no suggestion that
the recourse TO jury IN the city OF
New York in the case before US viii
be productive Of delay" the opinion
continued.
ut is urged that even though the
error Of calling a jury could be cor
rected on appeal still this would not
afford relief for the delay and IN
/ Jury already caused but this argument
does not appeal to US. As has been
sufficiently stated, il is not to be as
. sured tina. a Judge will violate the pro-
vision of the statute by ordering jury
/ where such a step will cause delav, and
even if il should be otherwise, the EN-
cacy of the right TO appeal is not to DC
denied because the necessity for cor
recting errors in that manner may re-
suit in delay before rights are finally
established"
The issue which was settled yester'
dav arose in March Immediately after
the acquittal of Thaw and four others
for conspiring his escape from Mattea
wan in 1918. -,
The Jury which Justice Hendrick vii
,mpanel next week will merely act N
an advisory capacity, helping to deter
mine whether Thaw is now mentally
sound and fit to be at liberty.
tBy Telegraph TO The Trioune.l