New-York tribune., 1922-07-09

exercise Oh Gnc royal preroRatave OF
elememcy which has involved his Office
In fercer controversy than it has known
since the days Of the suffragettes and
forcible feeding.
The Home Secretary has Just had to
deal with the sentences passed in two
Murder cases, in both of which the ac-
cused were condemned to death. The
two cases, both of which attracted a
good deal of public attention and were
reported at length in the British
press, occurred at almost the same
time. What started the storm here
was the contrast offered by Edward
SHORTS handling Of the two cases.
Henry Jacoby, a pantry boy, aged
nineteen, killed in her bedroom in a
West End hotel Lady White, widow
of City knight. The crime was not
premeditated. Jacoby was out for
robbery, got a panic when Lady White
awakened on finding him in her room,
and struck her on the head with a
coal hammer. No formal plea Of in
hearing showed clearly enough that
the boy was degenerate, and the
jury in finding him guilty of murder
recommended him to mercy. This
recommendation was, of course, duly
forwarded to the Home Secretary,
along with the sentence of death. and
it was backed by a popular petition
for the youths reprieve. Edward
Short, however, refused to intervene.
and Jacoby was hanged.
.True Planned Murder;
Motive Was Robbery
Ronald True, an ex-oficer of the
Royal Flying Corps, aged thirty-one
the son OF woman now peeress,
whose name was concealed at the trial.
murdered Olive Young in her apart
cment in Fulham. The crime, commit
ted in revolving circumstances, was
evidently planned with care, and the
murderer took every possible precau-
tion to cover up his tracks. 1t was
brought out at his trial that he had
for some time been preying on women
of the class Of his victim, and there
was clear motive Of robbery. His
guilt was not seriously contested by
the defense, but the plea Of insanity
was raised. The jury rejected it after
it had been presented by the Judge in
his summing up and accompanied their
verdict by no recommendation to
mercy.
The defense then carried the plea of
insanity to the Court of Criminal Ap-
peal, but again it was rejected. In
these circumstances there was no ex-
pectation that the royal prerogative Of
,clemency would be invoked on behalf
of True, though it was known that in
fluential friends were working to save
9aim from the gailcws. On the eve of
his execution, however, it was an
.pounced from the Home Office that,
following an inquiry by three alienists
who found him insane, True had been
'reprieved and removed to Broadmoor
Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
Radical newspapers here did not hest
tate to charge that the contrast be-
tween the treatment of the two cases
was due to social influence. Even
some newspapers supporting the gov
eminent felt constrained to concede
fhat the coincidence whereby the pan
try-boy was hanged and the well-con-
,nected young man was found, by the
employment of unusual precedents, to
be insane was the sort of coincidence
which does immense harm to the pres
tige and repute of the law. Finally
Edward Shortt was called on TO de-
fend his action in the House of Com
mons.
He had no difficulty in making out
e faultless legal defense Of his re-
prieve of True-the case of Jacoby he
dismissed in sentence on the ground
that in this case the question Of in.
sanity had not arisen. In the case OF
True he invoked the Criminal Lunacy
act of 1884, showing that this act is
Teremptory in requiring the Home
Secretary to order an inquiry on ade.
~ 4u@No sSPi SAoc Ic
reason to believe prisoner is insane
y In this case such representations were
made by two prison doctors, and or
them he was bound to institute an in.
ouiry.
On the second point, whether he
should have disregarded the advice ot
the specialists, the Home Secretary
was equally successful in showing that
he had no option. For at least three
hundred years, he said, it has been
3 principle of English law that an in
sane man shall not go to execution
Therefore, he had acted throughout in
strict accordance with the law; it was
bis statutory duty to appoint the com
.r1ittee of inquiry, and it was his
statutory duty to act on the report of
the committee that True was insane
The suggestion that he had acted
under influence he denied warmly, say
ling that he did not know who True was
.and that he had no communication with
aybody except the judge and the
doctors.
Remedy Sought for Legal
Flaws Revealed BY Case
Tbi1 dafepse aaarrr 60 -