New-York tribune., 1921-12-29
Society Women
Support Alibi
OF Macarthur.
Testify at Extradition Hear
ing Before Governor Ac-
cused Artist Was at Sum-
mer Resort on Sept. IL
Maid Also a Witness
Miller Doubts Value Of
Identification by Victims
of Attack in New Jersey
Special Dispatch to The Tribune

Special Dispatch to The Tribune
ALBANY, Dec. 28.-Women of soci-
ETY. testified To-day before Governor
Miller in the hearing of extradition
proceedings instituted by Essex Coun-
ty. N. j., authorities against Alexander
A. Macarthur. Of New York City, paint
er and member of fashionable clubs,
under New Jersey Indictment on
charges of assault brought by Mary l..
Bradshaw and Mrs. Helen D. O'Neil.
Governor Miller expressed doubt as to
the value Of MacArthur's Identification
by the two women, who charge the art
list overpowered them on a lonely road,
threatening them with knife. The
attack on Miss Bradshaw is alleged to
have taken place October 10 and that
on Mrs. O'Neil September IT. Mae
Arthur was present at the hearing, of
which the outstanding feature was
presentation of evidence by Emil E.
Fuch, counsel tor the defendant, tend
ing to show he was not in New Jersey
either on October 10 or September II.
Miss Susan Curtis Woodford, daugh-
ter Of the late General Stuart Wood
ford; Mrs. Ruth Hoffman, Of Montclnir
and New York; Mrs. Sarah Abbott, of
Montclair; M. Paul Mccarthy, of New
York, and Mrs. Harry L. Balmos, Of
Montclair, all members Of the summer
colony at Martha's Vineyard, Mass
testified to having seen Macarthur
there on and about September II.
Charlotte Love, a maid. employed by
the MacArthurs, swore Macarthur did
not leave his home in New York on the
morning of October 10 until $3.50. The
attack on Mrs. O'Neil near Montc!air
took place at 10 o'clock.
Miller Doubts Identification
Governor Miller, in referring to the
reliability of such Identification as has
been offered in the case, said:
Il am not impressed with the ability
of either of these women to identify the
man they say committed this offense.
1 am not doubling their veracity at all,
but it does not impress me they are
able to identify. Merely saying He is
the man. isn't quite enough.
''If the question we're here as a trial
of question of fact for me to deter
mine I wouldn't have any hesitancy in
deciding the question of fact. l think
the testimony of the young woman as
to the alleged occurrence on the 18th,
in the light of the testimony on the
other side, is of no value whatever.
On the other charge, the ability OF a
person to Identify another is of so
dubious character that without some
better reason than has been given here
tc indicate the ability to identify
should attach practically no impor-
tance to the testimony, l am frank to
say. 1t is SO easy to make mistakos
There is the single circumstance here,
or coincidence, that both of these
women identified Macarthur at the po-
lice station. That is the only circum-
stance that, to my mind, is entitled to
the slightest consideration"
"If | were to decide it as a matter
of fact, the coincidence that both Of
them identified him is entirely over
come by the apparently credible testi-
mony of these ladies, who gave an ex-
planation of their reasons for their
certainty of seeing him at Marthas
Vineyard on the 18th; SO conclusiv
as to my mind entirely overcome the
coincidence. Now, l am frank to say
am not quite clear how far the Gov
ernor should go in passing upon the
sufficiency of evidence to warrant send
ing man to another state for q trial.
To my mind the evidence is almost to
the vanishing point in value Of iden-
tifcation, but whether there is enough
so l ought to say it is question to be
tried in the other state is a question
I want to consider'