Hide Article Text (OCR)
Statehouse Theft Reward at Stake ‘The man who robbed the stateh and has served part of his senten The people who aided the police in catching him are still arguing over the reward. ‘The latest incident involving the money occurred Saturday in U.S. District Court, Judge John A. Field Jr., refused to lure it over to the claimants. Instead, he said he would take evidence from all persons having a claim on the reward in his courtroom at Charleston on Sept. 12. He will decide later who will get what. 28 THE COMPLICATED case started when a young man named Earl Hayes Mathews robbed the office of the Department of Mo tor Vehicles of $351,000. Maryland Ise has been arrested, convicted Casualty Co., which insured the department, offered a reward ($34,540) for his arrest. Mathews was apprehended in 1960. Ten people claimed the re ward but a committee appointed by the insurance company fre duced it to three: Grover T. Davis , then an investigator for the pro secuting attorney's office; Mrs. Donald M. McIntyre of Marmet and Mathews' German born wife, Hildegarde. The committee recommended that Davis receive $19,540.85, Mrs. McIntyre $10,000 and Mrs. Mathews $5,000. Later, in an action brought by unsuccessful claimants, Judge Field ruled that Davis was eligible because of his connection with the prosecutor's office. The ruling was upheld in May by the U. S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, * * 7 ATTORNEYS FOR Mrs. Mc Intyre and Mrs. Mathews argued Saturday that their clients should receive the reward immediately and asked Judge Field to divest tthat it be paid. Howard Klostermeyer Said that Mrs. McIntyre and Mrs. Mathews had agreed on a mu tually advantageous division if they were to receive all the re ward—$22,793 for Mrs. McIntyre and $11,496 for Mrs. Mathews. If the arrangement wasn’t satis factory to the judge, then they’d take their $10,000 and $5,000 as offered by the committee. Klostermeyer asked Judge Field to agree. He said to do other wise might put the court in the position of breaking a contract between the insurance company and the claimants. Klostermeyer said nothing could be accomplish ed by a hearing and the fat that the court had invalidated Davis’ claim had no effect on ihat of the two women. HERMAN ROLLINS, who re- ‘presents one of the unsuccessful claimants disagreed. He said he thought the contract idea was no good because it wasn't between individuals but between the in surance company “‘and the whole world.” Furthermore, Rollins said, neither Mrs. McIntyre or Mrs. Mathews should be eligible be cause Mrs. MccIntyre’s son, James, was an assistant prose cuting attorney when Mathews was arrested, and because Mrs. Mathews ‘is the guilty man’s wife. “At least, ....these are propositions which should be aired out in court,” he said... Judge Field agreed. He inter rupted George Sharp, another lawyer arguing for Mrs. Mathews and Mrs. McIntyre to say: “. The question of whether it would run contrary to public po licy or contrary to good morals, you might say, for the wife of a felon or the mother of a man who was engaged in working in the prosecuting attorney’s office might very well be a question. I don't know whether there is any law on that at all. I don't know whether it has ever occurred be fore.”
Newspaper Details
Gazette Mail
Charleston, West Virginia, US
Sun, Jun 23, 1963
Page 50
Full Page
Clipped by
Diana T.
USA 11 Jul 2026
Other Publications Near Charleston, West Virginia
Charleston Daily Mail
Charleston Gazette
Gazette Mail
Charleston Gazette Mail
Charleston Mail
