Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Lang 141 A.D. 114

← Cases

People v. Lang

141 A.D. 114 Court Second Department, Decision date 1910-11-18 English

Delivered by *115 Thomas, J.:

Contents

Majority

p. 114
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henrietta Lang, Appellant.
Second Department,
November 18, 1910.

Headnote

Crime — prior jeopardy as bar — disorderly house—jurisdiction of Court of Special Sessions.
Where one charged before a city magistrate of New York city with keeping a disorderly house has been discharged, the Court of Special Sessions has- no jurisdiction to try him for the same offense. That the record does not show-that objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the court is immaterial.
Appeal by the defendant, Henrietta Lang, from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the Second Division of the city of New York, rendered against the defendant oñ the 12’th day of April, 1909, convicting her of the Crime of keeping a disorderly house, and also from two orders made on the 1st day of April, 19Í0, denying, the defendant’s sepárate motions for a new trial, and to vacate and set aside the. said judgment of conviction,
Arthur C. DostwicJc, for the appellant.
Peter P. Smith, Assistant District Attorney [John F. Clarice, District Attorney, with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Defendant, charged with keeping a disorderly house, and discharged by order of a city magistrate, was later found guilty of the same offense by' the Court of Special Sessions, on information filed by the district attorney, to which was attached the proceedings before the city magistrate.

The Court of Special Sessions had not jurisdiction after the discharge by the magistrate. (People v. Dillon, 197 N. Y. 254 .) The jurisdiction was not questioned on the trial. The present appeal is from the judgment, whereby it appeal’s that the Court of Special Sessions had no jurisdiction, and it is immaterial that the record does not show that objection to the jurisdiction. (Brookman v. Hamill, 43 N. Y. 554 , 564; Risley v. Phenix Bank of City of New York, 83 id. 318, 337.)

The judgment should be reversed.

• Woodward, Burr, Rich and Carr, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of conviction of the. Court of Special Sessions and orders reversed.

Cases cited