Case ID: abb-pr-ns_8/html/0112-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ingraham, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEOPLE ex rel. McCABE against THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE HOUSE OF REFUGE.
    
      Supreme Court, First Dist.; Special Term,
    March, 1870.
    Habeas Corpus.—Commitment to House oe Refuge.
    On habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person committed to the House of Refuge, the court will not go behind the statement as to 'age contained in the commitment, and receive evidence that he is older than statutory limit. That question can be raised only on certiorari.
    
    
      Habeas corpus.
    
    It appeared on the return to a writ of habeas corpus issued on the petition of James McCabe, that the petitioner was held uuder authority of the usual commitment to the House of Refuge. The commitment stated tlie age of the petitioner to be under sixteen years. Counsel for petitioner offered evidence to thow that the age of the petitioner was over eighteen at the time of commitment, and not under_sixteen, as stated in the commitment," and required by the statute.
    
      C. S. Spencer, for the petitioner.
    
      Henry A. Cram, for the respondent.
   Ingraham, J.

The statute makes the age as ascertained by the magistrate and inserted in the commitment, to be taken ais the true age of the delinquent.' This is stated as under sixteen years. On habeas corpus the statute requires us to consider that the true age, and the judge cannot go behind the commitment to try that question, any more than the question of guilt on the charge of petit larceny. That can only be reviewed on certiorari. The managers can discharge, and if convinced of the error, I suppose they would execute that power. The prisoner must be remanded on this writ.