Case Name: THE PEOPLE ex rel. BERNARD LEVY v. HENRY H. PRESTON
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-07
Citations: 18 N.Y. Crim. 475
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE ex rel. BERNARD LEVY v. HENRY H. PRESTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Criminal Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 475–476

Head Matter:
Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,
July, 1904.
THE PEOPLE ex rel. BERNARD LEVY v. HENRY H. PRESTON.
(44 Misc. 267.)
Jurisdiction—Complaint on Information and Belief Does Not Confer.
A sworn complaint or deposition on information and belief only confers no jurisdiction on a magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest or to hold for examination.’
Hearing on the return to writs of habeas corpus and certiorari to the sheriff of Suffolk County and George A. Buckingham, Justice of the Peace, respectively. The relator was arrested on a warrant issued by a Justice of the Peace on a charge of receiving stolen property, and committed to the county jail to await the action of the grand jury after an examination before the Justice.
Philip Cohen for relator.
Livingston Smith, District Attorney, for respondents.

Opinion:
Gaynor, J.:
The sworn complaint or deposition against the relator on which the Justice of the Peace issued the warrant on which he was arrested is on information and belief only, and therefore conferred no jurisdiction on the magistrate to issue the warrant (Matter of Blum, 9 Misc. Rep. 571).
It is contended, however, that the evidence taken before the magistrate on the examination after the arrest was sufficient to warrant his being held for the grand jury, and that therefore he was properly committed to await the grand jury. But the trouble is that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to hold such examination, and therefore all of his-acts were void (People ex rel, Kingsley v. Pratt, 22 Hun, 300), The relator's counsel on being arraigned moved for the relator's discharge for the insufficiency of the complaint, but the motion was denied, and the magistrate held the relator for examination, which was subsequently had. There is therefore no claim that the relator gave jurisdiction by consent; but that, I suppose, would be impossible in the case of a mere magistrate, if it might be possible in the case /of a court. 0
The relator is discharged.