Case ID: ny_248/html/0550-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rita Scotti, Respondent, v. The Superintendent of the New York State Reformatory for Women at Bedford Hills, Appellant. The People of the State of New York ex rel. Anna Smith, Respondent, v. The Superintendent of the New York State Reformatory at Bedford Hills, Appellant.
    
      Habeas corpus — magistrates — jurisdiction of magistrates in unincorporated village to sentence to reformatory upon conviction of vagrancy under subdivision 4 of section 887 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
    
    
      People ex rel. Scotti v. Supt. N. Y. State Reformatory, etc., 222 App. Div. 680, reversed.
    
      People ex rel. Smith v. Supt. N. Y. State Reformatory, etc., 222 App. Div. 681, reversed. ,
    (Argued April 10, 1928;
    decided May 1, 1928.)
    Appeal, in each of the above-entitled proceedings, .by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 4, 1927, which unanimously affirmed an order of Special Term sustaining a writ of habeas corpus and discharging relator from custody on the ground that the warrant of commitment was void. The relators were charged with vagrancy under subdivision 4 of section 887 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They were tried and convicted before a magistrate in an unincorporated village. The question was as to his power to sentence relators to a reformatory, it being contended that only a city magistrate had that power in such cases.
    
      Albert Ottinger, Attorney-General (Henry C. Henderson of counsel), for appellant.
    
      Alton W. Teale for respondents.
   In each case order of Appellate Division and that of Special Term reversed and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed, upon the ground that the magistrate had jurisdiction to issue the commitment under section 226 of the State Charities Law.

Concur: Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ.; Crane, J., dissents and votes for dismissal of appeal upon the ground that the relators have not been found guilty.