The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-01-27
Price Two Cents.
AZ Chambers.
Before Judge InRrahaxn

At Chamber.
Before Judge Ingrsham.
JAN xs.dpphealios Of MISE Wsish for hH Dtsshosss-
This matter was argued to-day, when the Judge pro
nounced the following opinion;
In tn is case application is made TO discharge
the petitioner from the custody OF the sheriff On the
that he holds the petitioner by virtue Of three cen
mtments from the Court Of Sessions, IN which the
ID to STAND %'s until 70 s ysa ns.
paid Inc application for the discharge rests upon the
ground that the sheriff has no right to the custody OF
the petitioner and therefore authority to dsain him
Throughout the State the County Jail is used the
place oil confinement beth Of debtors and criminals,
and generally placed under the control and charge of
the Sheriff OF the county. X. S. 764 section L. BY the
9TH and 9th sections on page TOO the penensry and city
prison are placed under the control oil the city govern.
ment and power to appoint the keepers OF prisons
conferred upon that body; The building used jail
was by the continued the Jail for the OF
persons civil process and the custody thereof given
the sheriff r. 5. A1s section ~ And by the 10Th sec
ton H. S. 372, the custody Of the jail given also to
the sheriff used for the confinement persons on civil
process only while the custody both OF als prisons
the Of the r. s. in regard to as and prisons in
the city OF New York Taking these provisions together
think the fair construction them Ia that Tor ali puIpo
other than the confinement Of persons civil process
and proceedings .inciyil suits the Sheriff has charge
keepers OF them who are to be appointed by the Common
Council BY the act passed April 10, 1874 (ews relating
to New York. 2 which has not been repealed special
provisions made for the penentiaIy and Tor the city
prison title given TO the respective keepers thereof
and directs the mode in which offenders be
committed to the custody OF the keepers by the Court in
the commitment who are required TO keep such persons
in the manner as Sherifs in other counties. subse
quenty another statute passed authorizing the Mayor
&c of New York. to provide Jail for persons confined
civil process and suitable buildings for the safe keeping Of
prisoners who might by law be committed thereto and
giving full power to the Common Council from time
time appropriate and other buildings for such pnr
hy n'SsSt iUn A
repealed by Act of Feb 90 $780, X s. 265 III which
they ara authorized designate any buildings common
jas These powers have been fully carried out by or
dnances and they have designated the respective prisons
as now used Tor these purposes under that authority
rom thpS
that the charge Of the prisons Tor the oi cr
mnals not in the sheriff ofthe city, but y the keeper
appointed for that purpose and doubt remained ~
to the original intention OF the Legislature upon this sub
ject would be removed by referring D. H. g. l2s
custody Of persons imprisoned on civil process only
is given the Sheriff, and the custody OF persons
charged with any offence is given to the keeper
Of the city Prison 1t is commended that the
provisions OF the r. s. which prcscrbes the punishment
OF misdemeanor to Define Imprisonment in county JAIL
gives the custody Of persons sentenced the Sheriff and
authorizes the confinement in the debor prison But that
provision appears to to be the general provision In
gard the State and is to be construed respect to New
York in such manner not to be inconsistent with the
the Legislature have divided the buildings appropr
aed for these purposes and appointed different persons TO
have charge of them the distinction IL to be observed
throughout and therefore the county jail intended BY
that provision the city Of New York would be that
building Jail set apart for the confinement Of offenders.
and not that provided for debtors An objection. how
made to the jurisdiction OF the officer under this
writ because it appears that the sheriff holds the petit
toner prisoner under and by virtue OF certain
mitmens issuing Of the Court of General Sessions,
founded upon convictions therein The statute provides
that such duly certified shall be sufficient auhori
y the Sheriff other officer to execute the law These
certificates duly made out and would afford
ample justification to the officer to hold the prisoner he
had the power do The transcript OF the entry OF
the convection and Of the sentence is all that required
and II therefore necessary that in addition thereto
there should be commitment TO particular officer he
officer, whose duty is to keep prisoners is required by
the statute to receive and keep them receiving such
certificate In the present then, believing the cert
the clerk be in proper form the OF the
Sheriff shows that the petitioner in his custody by viz
tue Of such certificates founded the judgment and sen
tence of the of General Sessions II the sheriff
had been required in his stated psIi
cularly the mode in which he received such certificates
testimony had been produced TO show that the sher
aai rs n a s'f S and IN Mir IRON
proceed in dscharging from the sheris custody But
in the absence of such testimony bound to presume
that the same were legally delivered TO him7 (See /
Hill, 1851 And if so then, although they may have
erred, has officer power to examine such proceed.
ings Of the Court habcas corpus (see several
cases referred to in Hill page 66a note) These GER
thcaes can be obtained from the clerk by any per.
son application, and when it il apparent that the
sheriff has not authority To deain the petitioner this
proceeding am Of opinion that in such relief
should be granted by habeas corpus Any other rule
would leave the prisoner custody Of any individual who
chose TO get copy OF this certificate from the clerk and
then arrest the individual named in the conviction
detain him prisoner without any authority whatever
Under these views do not feel authorized to refuse dis
| charge from this imprisonment by the Sheriff II was
suggested that order granted dischsrglng
the petitioner from the custody OF the sheriff it the
duty Of the officer to remand the prisoner the custody
the rule here appears that any is entitled TO such
custody No such fact appears in this There 10
other person. that there is any authority from
the court to any person detain him The presumption
that he has been legally discharged by the person
had such custody and until the contrary is Inade ep-
pear by testimony, there evidence that there Is any
legal Of detention II he has been improperly dis
by the officer who should have detained him the
Court has ample to him to be recommitted
An order in conformity with this opinion then sign
ed by the Judge, and Mike was discharged.