The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-05-20
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST ENFORC.
ING TIE CRIMINAL Law.

BY the Court Of Appeals Of this state In the
case Of Delaney ~. Flood. that q person can
not invoke the aid Of a court Of equity to In
terfere with the enforcement OF the criminal
law. has been followed by the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court for the First
Department, in the case of Stevens 70. Nc"
Adoo. That there In a strong divergence OF
opinion as TO the scope and effect Of the De-
laney decision Is evidenced by the registry
Of Individual views by the Ave Justices who
sat in the Stevens appeal. The opinion IL
written by Justice Ingraham and concurred
In by Justice Clarke In every respect; Justice
Laughlin concurs only In the result and JUS
tice Patterson conours solely on the ground
that the facts of the Stevens case come within
the doctrine announced by the Court OF APP
peals in the Delaney case. Presiding JUS
tice O'Brien, however, dissents In an opinion
which, II 1t is followed on a further appeal,
viii materially limit the application OF the
Delaney doctrine.
stevens was suspected by the police Of this
city Of running a poolroom in violation OF
Section 35i of the Penal Code. Men we're
accordingly assigned to duty In and about
the premises. Their interference with the
business and property Of Stevens caused him
to apply for a temporary injunction. restrain
ing the police from continuing their course
Of procedure. He obta ined this injunction,
which was later continued pendente lite. II
10 tbis VtNVi hitNh hA' -" DNN" ~
appeal by a divided court.
The opinion of Justice Ingraham Is that
II Is the duty Of the police to arrest persons
violating the criminal law Of the State. that
they are responsible for the performance OF
this duty, and that 1t Is not for a court CT
equity to determine whether or not a person
has committed or Is about to commit q
crime. He says:
The foundation of the plaintiffs complaint Is that
the police have charged him with being engaged
In O business which the law has made criminal:
that he Is innocent OF the charge: that the business
in which he 10 engaged is not criminal: and he
therefore asks q court OF equity 10 determine that
he is not committing q crime. that his business is
not criminal. and to enjoin the ofnoep from inter
ferng with his business, or with those wishing
10 do business with him. and the court has enter
tained this application and restrained the police
from interfering with the plaintiffs business, which
they claim Is unlawful and criminal.
Justice Ingraham proceeds to say that he
had supposed the law was settled In this
State, that equity has no jurisdiction in
actions Of this character. PriEeights. con-
Quoting poolrooms. selling liquor without a
license, and other occupations prohibited
by law have frequently enjoyed immunity
from police interference as a result OF special
term decisions. but such rulings have gener-
ally been reversed on appeal. He quotes
the following para graph from the opinion in
the Delaney case, which involved the question
Of fact whether q certain Raines law hotel
was q dlsorderly house:
II the plaintiff did in fact maintain a disorderiy
house. Il was the defendants right, II II was not
his duty, to warn persons about to enter against
becoming participators In plaintiffs violation OF
the Law. The whole question, whether the acts
Of the defendant and his inferior ofhcers were legal
or not. depends entirely upon the character OF the
30 called hotel. This basic question should not be
determined In a court OF equity upon afndavits,
but In a court OF Law. and by evidence that is tested