Hyperlawhypertext legal database People ex rel. Hallock v. Sleight 9 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 632

← Cases

People ex rel. Hallock v. Sleight

9 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 632 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Delivered by Talcott, J.:

Contents

Majority

p. 632
THE PEOPLE ex rel. GEORGE W. HALLOCK v. BRINLEY D. SLEIGHT, Justice of the Peace.

Headnote

Justices' Oowrt—judgment in—cannot be reviewed, by eertiormi,.
A judgment rendered by a Justices’ Court cannot be reviewed by a common law certiorari. The only mode of reviewing such a judgment is by appeal, as provided in chapter 5 of the Code, section 351.
Cebtioeaei to review a judgment recovered in a Justices’ Court against the relator, for a penalty.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
George Miller, for the relator.
George W. Whitaker, for the defendant.

This proceeding is an attempt to review the judgment rendered by a Justices’ Court, by means of a common law certiorari. The

p. 633
certiorari appears to have been issued without any application for the same, or any allowance by the court, but merely at the option of the attorney of the party against whom judgment was rendered in the Justices’ Court, and for the reason that the time for appealing had expired. The writ must be quashed. It is expressly provided by law, that the only mode of reviewing such judgments is by appeal, as provided in chapter 5 of the Code of Procedure.[1]

Certiorari quashed, with costs against the relator.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Talcott and Tappen, JJ.

Writ quashed, with costs against relator.

* Code, § 351.