The Waterbury Democrat., 1933-04-12

Attorney Joseph koletsky or \ New Haven, who represented Mrs ] James Hall, wife of the motion pie ! ture actor, during the court pro- l ceedings incident to her non-sup- I port case recently, acted in good 1 faith throughout the extradition proceedings which brought Hall to ] Connecticut from California, Judge ' Alfred c. Baldwin states in a de- !. cision handed down recently in tho 1 New Haven superior court. ] The non-support charge was dis d missed by Judge Walter M. Pickett Il of tho New Haven court of com- ' mon pleas on the ground that Con-
 necticut courts had no jurisdiction !, and said in his opinion that the ex- Il tradition papers had been obtained ] through fraud.
 Il Judge Baldwin's decision rem 1, dered after an inquiry of the facts a is as follows:
 Joseph Koletsky, an attorney at l law, residing in and engaged in the practice of the law in the city of New Haven, has presented to this
 court, under the provisions of Sec
 tion 6526 of the General Statues, ! his application for payment to him \ of approximately one-third of the aexpenses incurred in requistion pro- ceedings in the instant case.
 "The statute under which this application is brought provides as follows:
 "'When a requisition shall be
 made by the governor upon the executive authority of another state
 for the delivery of any fugitive
 from justice, the necessary eX-
 penses of such requisition and of lthe removal of such fugitive shall
 be ascertained and allowed by the
 superior court for the county witff- in which tho crime charged shall
 be alleged to have been committed,
 and shall be paid by the state, if
 duplication therefor shall be made
 within one year after they shall
 have been incurred.'
 Tt appears that on September
 30, 1932, an exemplified warrant for the arrest of this accused was
 issued by judge of the city
 court of New Haven upon a com
 plaint issued by city attorney of said city, charging the accused with
 non n-support of his wife; that on October IA, 1882, formal request . by the states atotrney was made to l the governor of this state for the acquisition by him upon the gov-
 ernor of California for the delivery of the accused who was then in tioned date the governor of this
 state issued the necessary requisi-
 ton papers upon the governor of
 California for the delivery of the
 accused to properly deputized of- ficer for the return to this state.
 "These proceedings were all had at the instance of this applicant who was acting as the attorney for
 the complainant--the wife of the accused. "Upon the issuance of the re- |quisition papers, this applicant with the deputized officer, and the com- plainant, wife of the accused, as a
 necessary witness, and another necessary witness. proceeded to Los Angeles in this applicants automo- bile, and from thence to Sacra-
 mento and from thence to Los An- geles, and thence to New Haven.
 This trip required 32 days. It was necessary for the officer in traveling between Los Angeles and sacramento and return to travel by airplane and by railroad train. Up- on his return to New Haven with the accused, travel was by ex- press train.
 "Upon this trip this applicant drove his automobile somewhat over 5000 miles. He paid the en- tire expenses of all transportation incident to the trip of each mem- i Der of the party. including hotel, lodging, and all expense of main- tenance. "There was contest waged over the extradition before the governor of California as a result of which 3 the requisition was granted.
 "The cash disbursement of.this applicant were slightly in excess of II i.50O. The use Of his automobile was reasonably worth $500. This
 use resulted in saving in expense