Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Seth Olmsted, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-12
Citations: 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 323
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Seth Olmsted, Appellant.
Judges: Putnam, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 81
Pages: 323–328

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Seth Olmsted, Appellant.
Sufficiency of a cj'iminal information — selling liquor without a license — Oourt oj Special Sessions.
An information filed with a justice of the peace, as the basis of a criminal proceeding in a Court of Special Sessions, should state the crime charged with such accuracy that the defendant may know the exact offense which it is claimed that he has committed.
An information, filed with a justice of the peace, charged that the defendant “ on various occasions of 1890 and '91, at Mongaup Yalley, in the town of Bethel, county of Sullivan, 3ST. Y , at different times did commit the crime of selling strong and spirituous liquors ” to certain persons named, who were examined on oath, by the justice, and each swore that he had purchased lager beer of the defendant and drunk it on his premises, upon which testimony a warrant was issued charging the sale of strong and intoxicating- liquors without a license.
Meld, that the papers were defective and would not support a conviction in the Court of Special Sessions, for the reason that the information did not charge any specific crime, and the crime attempted to he set forth was defectively alleged as to time,-
That the defendant must he tried upon the information and not upon the warrant;
That an information should allege the facts constituting the crime and the time when it was committed. (Mayham, P J., dissenting.)
'Appeal by the defendant, Setli Olmsted, from a judgment of conviction v< for tlie crime of selling strong and intoxicating liquors,” rendered against liim in a Oourt of Special Sessions, held in the town of Bethel, Sullivan county, on the 28th day of February, 1891, and-affirmed by the Court of Sessions of Sullivan county on the 17th day of June, 1891.
Charles H. Stage, for the appellant.
Melvin H. Couch, District Attorney, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Herrick, J.:
It seems to me that the conviction in this case should be reversed, for the reason that the complaint or information upon which the defendant was tried did not sufficiently state the crime charged against him.
While proceedings before inferior courts are to be liberally con strued, and informations lodged before committing magistrates are not expected to be drawn with the technical accuracy that an indictment should be (Hewitt v. Newburger, 48 N. Y. St. Repr. 811), yet such informations, taking the place as they do of indictments in superior courts, should state with sufficient accuracy the crime charged, that the defendant may know the exact offense which it is claimed he has committed, so that he may properly prepare his defense, and also in order that after he has been tried upon the charge he may plead it in bar upon any subsequent charge against him for the same offense.
The information in this case does not specify the crime charged with sufficient accuracy to comply with the requirements suggested ; it does not apprise the defendant of the exact charge against him, and the charge is so indefinitely made that it does not seem to me that it would be available as a plea in bar to a subsequent charge made against him for the same offense.
The information is that the defendant, " On various occasions of 1890 and '91, at Mongaup Talley, in the town of Bethel, county of .Sullivan, N. Y., at different times did commit the crime of selling strong and spirituous liquors to Andrew R. Ramsey, Thomas Casey, Edgar Peck and others."
When a person is charged with doing an act which may or may not be a crime, -and the circumstances or facts which render the act criminal are not set forth, it seems to me that no crime is charged.
Selling strong and spirituous liquors may or may not be a crime; if it is sold without a license that is a crime; if sold with a license it may or may not be a crime ; if sold to a minor, to Indians, on Sunday, or within prohibited hours on secular days, it is a crime, although the person selling has a license.
None of these offenses are set forth in this information, yet if it is held good any one of these charges could be proved upon the trial.
What particular violation of the Excise Law in regard to the sale of liquors is the defendant notified to defend himself against by this information; against what particular charge can he plead it in bar after he has been tried upon it %
It is true that in this case the warrant states the sale to have been without a license, but the defendant is not tried upon the warrant, but upon tlie information; tlie warrant lias fulfilled its office when it has brought the defendant into courtthat is its only function.
So, also, the allegation as to time is defective. While time is not an ingredient of the crime of unlawfully selling liquors, except as to prohibited days and hours, and when alleged need not perhaps be proved exactly as alleged, yet the time of the commission of the offense should be alleged for the purpose of apprising the defendant when it is claimed he committed such crime (People v. Stocking, 50 Barb. 573), in order that he may prepare his defense, and also that he may use it, as before suggested, as a plea in bar. Stating the offense to have been committed during two years, as in this case, is not fixing any time at all; it seems to me that both time and place, when and where his crime is alleged to have been committed, should be set forth in the information; that justice to the person charged so requires; and the information not complying with that, it is insufficient.
I conclude, therefore, that the information is defective in that it does not charge any specific crime, and that the crime attempted to be set forth is defectively alleged as to time, and that the defendant should not have been placed upon trial upon it, and that his conviction thereupon should be reversed.
Putnam, J., concurred.