Case ID: nys_121/html/0473-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HIRSCHBERG, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEOPLE v. HALE.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    March 4, 1910.)
    Criminal Law (§ 1023)—Review of Oral Order.
    No appeal can be taken from an oral order overruling a demurrer to» an information.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2591; Dec-Dig. § 1023.]
    Appeal from Court of Special Sessions of City of New York.
    William H. Hale was indicted for crime, and he appeals from añora! order overruling his demurrer to an information.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P.J., and JENKS, BURR, THOMAS, and CARR, JJ.
    William H. Hale, in pro. per.
    Harry S. Sullivan (Herman Stiefel, on the brief), for the People.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HIRSCHBERG, P. J.

The defendant was charged ydth a violation of the provisions of section 1188 of the amended charter of the city of New York (chapter 466, Daws 1901), in refusing permission to a sanitary inspector of the department of health to enter and examine the premises of the defendant as to their sanitary condition. The papers on appeal state that the demurrer was overruled without written order, and that the appeal is taken from the oral order so overruling the demurrer. Aside from the question of the validity of the act which the defendant is charged with transgressing, and which is not considered, no authority for the practice adopted by the appellant is known to the court, and none is furnished in the brief.

The appeal should, therefore, be dismissed, but without costs. All concur.