The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-06-19
THAW IS GRANTED RIGHT TO JURY BY
 COURT OF APPEALS
Will Get Trial for Sanity Before Twelve Men as
 Advisers.to Judge.

New York. June 19.-Persons near l Grand and Ludlow streets at 3:3o l yesterday afternoon heard three faint cheers. The only reason the cheers l were faint was because they bad strug- l g1ed through the thick walls of Lud- l low Street jail where they had been Ijoyously elected from the eS mouths of the .Alimony club.
 That exclusive body was even then digesting the fresh news that it's hon orary member, Harry K. Thaw, wJlI | have his sanity tested by a jury next Tuesday, if present plans are fulfilled l Thaw was playing ball in the jail | yard when the verdict of the Court of Appeals handed down in Albany yes terday sustaining the decision of Su- i preme Court Justice Hendrick that l he was entitled to a, jury trial was 1 made known to him by his secretary. There was a delay of only a. minute l or two. however, for as soon as he l had heard the news Thaw, smiling happily, verified the score and re- I turned to the game-after his fellow 1 prisoners had patted his shoulder and shaken hands with him vigorously
 Thaw Gains in Weight. Thaw, a reporter learned yesterday. 1 has gained in weight and health dur ing his stay in thet Ludlow street jail, and at present is in high spirits, conf dent no jury would declare him in sane.
 The reporter was told Thaw is the most popular inmate. It was said if the AIimony Club could sit upon his case there wouldn't be dissenting vote in the twenty-eight on the ques- tion of giving him his liberty Thaw. refused to see newspaper re- portePs or to make any statement, but it was said he had infringed on I 1OTl if-17f on l delighted" several times during the late afternoon.
 John B. stanchfield, who is directing Thaw's legal fight against returnig to the Matteawan State Hospital for l the Criminal Insane, from his summer 1 home in Bayberry Point, L. l., said to Ia reporter over the long distance teIe- phone
 'sTt would not be in good taste for me to discuss the decision of the Court of Appeals any further than to say it lis the last word that can be said, and that we will go ahead next Tuesday l4norning with the trial by jury
 Asked if he would say the decision was an important step in the battle for Thaw, MT. StanchfieId laughed and said:
 Well it's a milestone on the road, anyway
 l Judge Need Not Be Bound.
 The opinion was written by Judge Hiscock and points out that the trial judge may be guided by, but need not l be bound by, the verdict of the jury. ] Chief Judge Willard Bartlett did not 1 participate in the case. Judges Chase, Hogan, Seabury, Hiscock, Suddeback and Miller agreed in the decision.
 Tt is pIain,'' the court said, that MT. Justice Hendrick does not by calling a Jury intend at all to evade the burden and responsibility of u1ti- rnately deciding the issue which has been raised. but simply intends to 1 take the verdict of such jury by way 1 of advice and aid in making such u1- timate decision, and therefore the 1 question is presented whether a jus l t1ce before whom such proceeding | is pending has the power in his dis erection thus to call to his aid a jury, it being admitted that the reIator in the habea.s corpus proceedings is not entitled as a matter of right to jury 1 trial.
 'The admission or reception by the I judge of such verdict would furnish 1 the opportunity for proper objection And if his subsequent action was such 1 that it could be maintained that he 1 had been enormously influen ced thereby, there would be opportunity for review of his action on appeal by l the party aggrieved, the same as if err l roneous ruling had been made in the reception or rejection of evidence, or 1 in respect of other matters more com
 nonly occurring on a trial. If it be l that the party aggrieved could secure proper relief on an appeal. it is well settled that writ or prohibition should not be granted
 Speed Up to Thaw
 l After pointing out that one of the principal objects of review by habeas corpus is the speedy determination of the point at issue, the opinion con- tinued:
 Therefore. it is feature of ina portance in this case, as it easily might | be in others, that the application for 9 hearing by a, jury is made by the person. who is detained, and conse- quently the party especially protected against delay is not complaining of it's Ioccurence
 ''The question whether the subnais- sion of an issue of fact to a jury for 1 the aid of the court would result in a 1 violation of the statute is one which | might easily be decided by the cir cumstances of the particular case. If a jury could be promptly secured, it is not apparent that any substantial delay would be occasfoned by calling one If one could not be obtained it 1 might result in reprehensible and for 1 pidden delay. It is not to be assumed that justice would order such a jury when such course might lead to vio- | latlon of the statute, and there is no
 
 the city of New York in the case e. fore us will be productive of de1ay.'
 The attorney generals office had carried the fight to prevent a test of | Thaw's sanity before jury to the highest court, maintaining there was no warrant in law for the decision of Justice Hendrick to empaneI a jury.
 This angle of the Thaw case dates back to March 13 when a jury before Justice Page acquitted him and four | n 6F tion with his escape from Matteawan It was reported this jury believed Thaw sane.
 writ of habeas corpus, accom- pany1ng other legal proceedings, was tsued out on the ground that Thaw's l detention was illegal As snon as it