Case ID: how-pr_19/html/0011-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Daly, F. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NEW YORK COMMON PLEAS.
    The People ex rel. George Doyle agt. R. H. Johnston, Clerk of New York Special Sessions.
    Where a party accused of petit larceny, or assault and battery, is brought before the special sessions of the city of Hew York, and enters into a recognizance for his appearance at the general sessions, it must be regarded as an election by him, and as a recognition by the magistrate of his election, to be tried at the general sessions, and the special sessions thereafter has no jurisdiction of the case.
    And this is so, whether the accused was informed or not by the magistrate or the clerk of special sessions, that it was his privilege to elect to be tried at the general sessions, as required by the act of 1855. (Laws of 1855, p, 613.)
    
      New York Special Term,
    
    
      April, 1860.
    Motion to discharge defendant from commitment at special sessions.
   Daly, F. J.

Under the Revised Statutes (2 Rev. Stat., 4th ed., p. 899, § 24) a party accused of petit larceny, or assault and battery, might, after he had given a recognizance to appear at the general sessions, demand to be tried at the special sessions; for it was declared by the twenty-fourth section above referred to, that if a person accused of either of these offences should be required to enter into a recognizance to appear before the proper court to answer such charge, that he might at any time demand to be tried by the special sessions, upon which the court was required to proceed to hear and determine the accusation. Before the act of 1855, therefore, I presume it was the practice in every case where the accused was admitted to bail and wished to be tried at the special sessions, to take a recognizance for his appearance at the general sessions, and if he failed to appear at the special sessions, to have him indicted, and if he neglected to appear at the general sessions to answer the indictment, to forfeit his recognizance. The special sessions obtained jurisdiction, if the accused did not require to be tried at the general sessions, or did not, within twenty-four hours after being committed on the charge, enter into a recognizance for his appearance at the next court of general sessions, or if having entered into such recognizance, he saw fit thereafter to demand to be tried by the special sessions.. The object of these provisions was to enable the party accused of these petty offences to have a more speedy trial if he desired it. But the act of 1855 made a very material change. (Laws of 1855, p. 613.) It greatly enlarged the powers of the special sessions, by declaring that it should have exclusive jurisdiction of all misdemeanors, unless it should order the complaint to be heard at the general sessions, or unless the accused, when arrested and brought before the committing magistrates, should elect to have his case heard and determined by the general sessions; and it was made the duty of the magistrate to inform him of this provision. If Doyle had been informed of his rights by the magistrate, or by Johnston, the clerk, and he made no election, it was the duty of the magistrate to commit him for trial at the special sessions, or take a recognizance for an appearance before that' court. There seems to have been a doubt of the right to take a recognizance for an appearance at the special sessions, to remove which the act of 1859 was passed (Laws of 1859, p. 1129), which declares that if the accused elects to be tried at the special sessions, and is admitted to bail, a recognizance shall be taken for his appearance at that court. But there was no ground for such a doubt, for since the time of the passage of the act of Philip and Mary (6 Evans' Statutes, 252), in cases of petty larcenies and small felonies, the recognizance was certified to the quarter sessions (Dalton's Justice, 540; Hugh Peterdorf on Bail, 511), a tribunal for the trial of minor offences, analagous to our special sessions. The practice of taking a recognizance for the prisoner's appearance at the general sessions was, after the act of 1855, no longer necessary or proper, for the prisoner could not, as before, elect at any timé to be tried by the special sessions. He was bound, after th» passagó of that act, to elect to be tried before the generafsessions, when he was arrested and brought before the committing magistrate, and if he did not at that time so elecl the special sessions had exclusive jurisdiction. There was some reason, before the passage of the act of 1855, for- taking the recognizance, in every case, for an appearance at the general sessions, but none thereafter. It matters not, therefore, whether Johnson, the clerk, informed Doyle of the provisions of the act of 1855 or not, a point that is contested in the affidavit. For when he entered into a recognizance before Justice Kelly for his appearance at the general sessions, it must be regarded as an election by him, and as a recognition by the magistrate of his election, to be tried at the general sessions. This being the case, the special sessions had no jurisdiction. He was not amenable to the process of that ■ court, and must be discharged.