Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of Sidney G. Harnett, Petitioner, for a Prohibitive Order against Extraordinary Trial Term of the Supreme Court, Alleged to Be Held in and for the County of Kings, under and Pursuant to a Proclamation of the Governor of the State of New York, Dated August 2, 1929, and the Hon. Arthur S. Tompkins, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the Ninth Judicial District, Designated to Hold Said Alleged Extraordinary Trial Term, and the People of the State of New York, the Alleged Plaintiff in a Criminal Action, Now Alleged to Be Pending in the Said Alleged Extraordinary Trial Term of the Supreme Court against the Petitioner, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1929-12
Citations: 228 A.D. 628
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Sidney G. Harnett, Petitioner, for a Prohibitive Order against Extraordinary Trial Term of the Supreme Court, Alleged to Be Held in and for the County of Kings, under and Pursuant to a Proclamation of the Governor of the State of New York, Dated August 2, 1929, and the Hon. Arthur S. Tompkins, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the Ninth Judicial District, Designated to Hold Said Alleged Extraordinary Trial Term, and the People of the State of New York, the Alleged Plaintiff in a Criminal Action, Now Alleged to Be Pending in the Said Alleged Extraordinary Trial Term of the Supreme Court against the Petitioner, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 228
Pages: 628–628

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of Sidney G. Harnett, Petitioner, for a Prohibitive Order against Extraordinary Trial Term of the Supreme Court, Alleged to Be Held in and for the County of Kings, under and Pursuant to a Proclamation of the Governor of the State of New York, Dated August 2, 1929, and the Hon. Arthur S. Tompkins, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the Ninth Judicial District, Designated to Hold Said Alleged Extraordinary Trial Term, and the People of the State of New York, the Alleged Plaintiff in a Criminal Action, Now Alleged to Be Pending in the Said Alleged Extraordinary Trial Term of the Supreme Court against the Petitioner, Respondents.

Opinion:
The decision of this court handed down November 22, 1929, is hereby amended to read as follows: Motion for alternative order of prohibition denied as a matter of discretion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ.
See 227 App. Div. 811— [Rep.