Case ID: ny_99/html/0610-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam mem.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Charles E. Poucher, Jr., Respondent.
    When an order of General Term, reversing a judgment of conviction in a criminal action, omits to show that the court exercised its discretion and refused a new trial upon the facts and granted it only for error of law, it is not reviewahle here.
    (Argued March 26, 1885;
    decided April 14, 1885.)
    This was an appeal from an order of General Term reversing a judgment entered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of larceny.
    The following is the mem. of opinion.
    “ The order of the General Term reversing the conviction of the trial court in this ease and granting a new trial does not state upon what ground or for what reason the judgment of conviction was reversed. When in the exercise of its discretion the General Term refuses to grant a new trial, such discretion is not reviewahle in this court. An appeal to this court from a judgment of conviction brings up for review only questions of law. Unless, therefore, the order of the . General Term shows that the Supreme Court has exercised its discretion and refused a new trial upon the facts and granted it only for errors of law, there is nothing for this court to review on appeal to it. (People v. Boas, 92 N. Y. 560.)
    “ The order being defective in the particulars indicated, it cannot be said that the court below committed any error, and the appeal should be dismissed.”
    
      Ceylon. H. Lewis for appellant.
    
      John Hallock Drake for respondent.
   Per Curiam mem.

for dismissal of appeal.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.