Case ID: how-pr_64/html/0007-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lawrence, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUPREME COURT
    The People ex rel. Clarke agt. Clarke.
    
      Habeas corpus — Application—How and to whom made—Oode of Oivil Procedure, section 2017.
    Under the Revised Statutes, a justice of the supreme court had power to allow the writ of habeas corpus in whatever part of the state the prisoner might he detained.
    Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a justice of the supreme court in any part of the state may issue the writ.
    
      Special Term, September, 1882.
    On a hearing upon the writ of habeas corpus obtained by Mrs. Mary A. Clarke to compel her husband, Octavius B. E. Clarke, to give to her the custody of her son, Stuart Clarke, fifteen years old, Mrs. Clarke says that while her son, who was living with her in this city and attending school, was out upon an errand he was kidnapped by his father, aided by a detective, and forcibly taken to Troy, where Mr. Clarke resides.
    The preliminary objection was made, on the part of Mr. Clarke, that the judge had no jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus in Hew York directed to a person in another part of the state.
   Lawrence, J.

The preliminary objection raised by the defendant’s counsel upon the return to this writ must be overruled. It was held by Mr. justice Harris, in the case of The People on the Relation of Bently agt. Hanna (3 How. Pr., 39), that, under the Revised Statutes, a justice of the', supreme court had power to allow a writ of habeas corpus in. whatever part of the state the prisoner might be detained; and the learned justice refers, in his decision, to the case of Woodruff agt. The People, decided by Mr. justice Willard, and also to the case of The People agt. Mercin (8 Paige, 55). The two thousand and seventeenth section of the Code of Civil Procedure is the same, in substance, as the provisions of the Revised Statutes relating to the writ of habeas corpus, with the exception thg,t the phraseology of the statute has been so far altered as to make it perfectly clear that a justice of the supreme court in any part of the state may issue a writ of habeas corpus. That it was the design of the commissioners to clear up any obscurity which arose from the language of the Revised Statutes is asserted by the commissioners in the note to section 2017 of the Code.