Case Name: PEOPLE ex rel. PUTNAM v. PALMER, Superintendent of Utica State Hospital
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-11-13
Citations: 106 N.Y.S. 583
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. PUTNAM v. PALMER, Superintendent of Utica State Hospital.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 106
Pages: 583–586

Head Matter:
PEOPLE ex rel. PUTNAM v. PALMER, Superintendent of Utica State Hospital.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
November 13, 1907.)
Habeas Cobpus—Costs—Insane Person—Illegal Commitment.
Where the superintendent of a state hospital received relator under a court order and an order of the state commission in lunacy, on relator’s discharge on habeas corpus because the original order of commitment was void, it was an abuse of discretion to award' costs against the superintendent, since he was not responsible in any way for the commitment, though when the writ of habeas corpus issued he did not surrender the re lator without delay or investigation; it being his duty to refuse to surrender him until all the questions involved could be judicially determined. Kruse, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Herkimer County.
Habeas corpus proceeding by the'people of the state of New York, on the relation of Howard Putnam, against Harold L. Palmer, superintendent of the Utica State Hospital. From so much of the final order as awards costs against defendant personally, he appeals. Reversed.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, and KRUSE, JJ.
F. H. Cookingham, for appellant.
George H. Bunce, for respondent.

Opinion:
McLENNAN, P. J.
It appears that on the 29th day of August, 1898, upon a petition presented to a justice of the Supreme Court, asking for the commitment of the relator, an alleged insane person, to a state institution for the insane, an order was made which directed that the relator be confined as an insane person at Brigham Hall, at Canandaigua, N. Y., a state institution for the care of the insane. Thereafter, and on the 10th day of April, 1899,.the state commission in lunacy issued an order directing the superintendent of Brigham Hall to release the relator for transfer and directed that the superintendent of the Utica State Hospital receive him. On the 22d day of April the relator was so received at the Utica State Hospital, and was confined there by virtue of the order of the court and the transfer order of the state commission in lunacy. On or about the 31st day of January, 1907, an unverified petition for a writ of habeas corpus was presented to a justice of the Supreme Court, who, on the 21st day of February, 1907, granted a writ of habeas corpus returnable on the 23 d day of February, 1907. A return was duly made, and on that day the relator was produced in court and an order of reference was made. On the 6th day of March, 1907, an amended return was made, and an answer to the amended return made on the same day. On the same day a hearing was had before the referee, the relator was examined in his own behalf, and a motion made for his discharge on the ground that the papers upon which he had been committed were irregular. It was agreed by the parties that the referee should make his report on the question of the regularity of the papers on commitment before the question of insanity was gone into. Thereafter, and on the 3d day of April, 1907, the referee made his report and found that the original order of commitment was void on the ground that the petition was not made by a person authorized by statute to make the same. A final order of discharge was thereupon made and entered, and served on the 6th day of April, 1907, and the relator was released. The order, among other things, awarded costs against the appellant, taxed at $70 and disbursements in the sum of $30.54, making a total of $100.54. From that portion of the order awarding costs against the defendant, this appeal is taken.
It would seem to be unnecessary to consider the question as to wtiether the court has power in a proceeding of this kind to award costs. Assuming that the contention of the respondent is right, that the awarding of costs was within the discretion of the .court, we think that the order should be reversed because of abuse of discretion. The appellant was a public officer, and so far as appears acted with an honest effort to discharge his duty. The relator was received by him by virtue of a court order and an order of the state commission in lunacy directing the appellant to receive and hold him. The appellant was without discretion in the matter. He was compelled to receive the relator into his custody. The suggestion that when the writ of habeas corpus was issued he did not surrender the relator without delay or investigation it seems to me is wholly untenable. It was his duty, in view of an order of a justice of the Supreme Court directing that the relator be confined as an insane person, and of the order of the state commission in lunacy that the appellant receive him into his custody, to refuse to surrender or discharge him until all the questions involved could be judicially determined; and it was the duty of the defendant by his return to raise and present all questions necessary to a determination of the issues. We think it clear that the defendant in this case did no more than he was in duty bound to do; that he is in no way responsible for the order originally made, which, we may assume, was made without jurisdiction, or for the order of the state commission in lunacy, which directed him to receive the relator. We conclude that that part of the order which awarded costs against the appellant should be reversed, because, under the circumstances, it was abuse of discretion.
Order, so far as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur; except KRUSE, J., who dissents.