New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1921-09-03

ney, tried to see Governor Edwards to
repeat the statements made to him by
DIR. Frank H. Moore and by Schwartz,
the fingerpr;nt expert, but without
success.
DR.. Moore had told Kelley on the
night of the murder. Goldenhorn said,
tina. the voice ne heard sounded like
a foreigners, and that the words were
indistinguishable DIR. Moore made the
same statement at the Coroner's in
quest, Goldenhorn said. At the trial,
however, DR.. Moore testified that he
heard a voice which he identified as
Brandon's saying: "Get the girl out,
Get the girl out!"
Regarding the fingerprints, Reiley's
account was that Schwartz had told
him there were none. on the door of the
car when he first examined it. Golden
horn added that he had evidence that
the car had been used for three months
by Kupfer's family before the finger
print photographs were taken and that
only the tip of the middle finger of the
right hand was shown. Reilley did not
know about the trial until he got out
of the army.
"The most important of the new evil
dance that / wanted the Governor to
see was in the Meyer affidavit that
Brandon worked on a car the night of
August %, 1918, at the garage in New
York. and Miss Brodell's affidavit that
she opened the door where Brandon
was living to let him in at midnight.
| Brandon's aunt testified that she had
prepared breakfast for him the next
morning, the Esd"
Assails Perchand's Story
"Perchand," Mr.. Goldenhorn contin-
ued, "who testified that he, stranger
to Kupfer and Miss fanny, had been
invited to drive the car after he and
three of them sat in the front seat,
while Brandon occupied the rear by
himself. made himself out innocent by
his testimony, yet he pleaded non vult.
! If he is innocent, such plea was not
necessary. If he is a perjurer, he was
not entitled to be heard"
Harrison P. Lindabury, who repre-
scented Frank M. McDermit at the dis
barment proceedings that followed
that no charge had been made that
McDermit's defence of Brandon was in
adequate or that Brandon's case had
in any way been prejudiced by McDer-
mit's conduct. McDermit had been dis
barred by the New Jersey Supreme
Court for failing to apply, as required
by Rule 81 of the Court of Errors and
| Appeals, for an order to secure a
speedy hearing of the writ of error
returnable November 20, 1920, the No
vernber term of the court having
opened on the 18th, and it being con-
ceived that there was not time to hear
the Brandon writ in the regular course.
Judge Defends Disbarment
This view was not held by Judge
Swayze, of the New Jersey Supreme
Court, who referred to McDermit's pre-
vious disbarment, in 1899, and said
"He is now guilty of lack of fidelity
IN matter involving life.
"He abandoned them Brandon and
his wife, when the prisoner was in the
very shadow of the electric chair, in
the very week fixed for the execution.
| That abandonment was not less culpa-
! Bile because he subsequently resumed
| his efforts in their behalf under strong
pressure from the court
For counsel to abandon client at
such a crisis is like soldier deserving
in the face Of the enemy. Dereliction
| on the part of. attorneys and counselors
is not uncommon, but fortunately the
most Enthusiastically counsel is ordi-
narily loyal enough to his client, and
even the ordinary sense of self-inter-
est urges lawyer to do the best he
| can to save his clients life. 1t is rare
! that counsel sets his own desire for
money before his clients chance of
| life. If mere unfaithfulness in money
matters justified his disbarment in
1899. much more must lack of fidelity
in matter Of life and death Justify
| his disbarment in 1921"