Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Lang 25 N.Y. Crim. 217

← Cases

People v. Lang

25 N.Y. Crim. 217 Court SUPREME COURT-APP. DIVISION—SECOND DEP., Decision date 1910-11-18 English

Delivered by Thomas, J.:

Contents

Majority

p. 217
SUPREME COURT-APP. DIVISION—SECOND DEP.,
Nov. 18 1910.
THE PEOPLE v. HENRIETTA LANG.
(141 App. Div. 114.)

Headnote

Disorderly House—Prior Jeopardy as Bar.
Where one charged before a city magistrate of New York city with keeping a disorderly house had 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 on the 12th 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, 1910, denying the defendant’s separate motions for a new trial, and to vacate and set aside the said judgment of conviction.
Arthur C. Bostwick, for the appellant.
Peter P. Smith, Assistant District Attorney [John F. Clarke, 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.

p. 218
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 appears 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, High and Carr, JJ., concurred.

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

Cases cited