New Britain herald., 1925-12-01
Defense Terms Docu-
ment Issued By Su-
perior Court "A Pre-
tended Writ Of Ha-
beas Corpus"
Detailed Statement by At
torneys for Condemned
Man Seek to Prove Gov
crnment Has Erred.

Hartford Dec. I P) --- "a pre-
tended writ of habeas corpus, So
called" is the defense characteriza-
i.On of the document issued on
order OF the superior court for
Hartford county, and by which
Gerald Chapman was transferred
rom federal jurisdiction for trial
for the murder OF Policeman James
Skclly OF New Britain.
The answer to the return Of the
United States government, as pre-
acnted In federal court yesterday
Ivy Assistant United States Attorney
George II. Cohen, was prepared TO-
day by Attorneys Joseph M.
Freedman and Charles W. Murphy.
The points had been discussed by
I'll of Chapman's counsel following
the federal court session on Mon
lay, and was whipped into shape
today. Immediately following the
preparation Of the answer to the
federal return, counsel started
work on the answer to the return
Of Henry X. w. Scott, warden of
the prison. which in reality Is the
return of the state OF Connecticut.
Chapman's answer to this return
will be similar in import to the an
SWcr to the governments return,
Nxcept that it will be bit more In
.intail.
Denials Filed
In Chapman's answer para
Eraphs 1, =, 3 and are denied.
Tnose asserted that the United
States has no interest or claim on
he person OF Gerald Chapman;
hat Chapman is not held as a
prisoner OF the United States, that
lie respond mt. Scott. is not an
agent Of the United States. Now he
IS holding Chapman IS an agent
~ the United States AND that
Chapman is no longer a prisoner
vt the United States.
Paragraphs ! and referring TO
he conviction OF Chapman for the
nail robbery and to his escapes and
r>oapturcs. are admitted.
AS to paragraph :, the allegation
,>ntained therein relating to the
;aDsfcr of Gerald Chapman from
(jl9nta to TN" gate prison at Weth-
,rsliold is admitted. but the legal
Y of the order OF transfer is de-
iitd.
As 10 paragraph in which the
'pvtrnnrnt claimed that no ohiec-
,iJn was made by Chapman or any
enc in his behalf 10 the transfer il
is set UP that the petitioner may
raise objections at any part of the
proceeding.
Paragraph Q, in which the govern,
mont referred to the voluntary trans
'cr of CT apman to the jurisdiction
pf the state of Connecticut the an
SWcr admits transfer, but the petit
TONER alleges that the removal TO
Connecticut was in violation Of The
powers of the attorney general and
"ontrary to the statutes, section
5I47 OF the revised statutes of the
United States, and n violation of The
constitutional rights OF the petitioner
"rhe pretended writ of habeas
rnrpus so-Callcd," referred 10 in
paragraph 10 OF the governments
return, is admitted as appears from
exhibit c, but the legality Of such
pretended writ of habcas corpus So
'allcd. and the remainder of the
paragraph is denied.
Paragraph II, referring to the full
jllment of the writ in the appear.
@ncc of Chapman in the superior
court on the day and at the tim,
mentioned in the writ, is admitted
20 that extent, but the remainder ol
The paragraph, as 10 the legality o!
the proceeding, is denied.
AS to paragraph Il. it is admitted
hat the United States district attor,
ney consented TO the issuance o.
writ of haboas corpus so-called fol
he production of Chapman in tn,
superior court, hut denies his author.
jty so doing.
So far as paragraph IS refers tC
he rcprieves granted Chapman af
'ccted the judgments of the conrts o.
the state of Connecticut is admitted
hut the claim that the rcpricvc af.
rooted his release from federal Gus
todv as a federal prisoner, is denied
Paragraph 1f, which set up tha
(Continued on Page Fourteen)