Case Name: PEOPLE v. SCHERNO et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-09-21
Citations: 125 N.Y.S. 918
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE v. SCHERNO et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 125
Pages: 918–923

Head Matter:
(140 App. Div. 95.)
PEOPLE v. SCHERNO et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
September 21, 1910.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 260 )—Appeal from City Court—Scope.
On appeal from convictions in Courts of Special Sessions and by mag7 istrates and police justices, only such errors will be considered as are specified in the affidavit upon which the appeal is allowed.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 260.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 90*)—Jurisdiction—City Court of Plattsburgh—Jurisdiction of Disorderly Person. *
The Plattsburgh city charter (Laws 1902, c. 269) creates a city judge and establishes a city court. Section 139 prohibits the keeping of disorderly houses, the keeping of which is declared to make one a disorderly person, and provides that one found guilty of being a disorderly person shall be guilty of misdemeanor. The section further provides that one complained against as a disorderly- person shall be brought before the city judge, who shall forthwith determine the complaint on which the arrest is made, and that on conviction, the offender can be punished, etc. Held, that the City Court has jurisdiction of the misdemeanor of being a disorderly person in such city, and one so charged is not entitled to waive examination and give bail to appear before the grand jury, nor to have the charge made presented by indictment and tried by a common-law jury.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 90.*]
Houghton, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Clinton County Court.
Antoine Scherno and another were convicted of being disorderly persons, and they appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before SMITH, P. J„ and KELLOGG, COCHRANE, SEWELL, and HOUGHTON, JJ.
John E. Judge, for appellants.
Arthur S. Hogue, Dist. Atty., for the People.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
. An information was presented to the city judge of the city of Plattsburgh, charging that on the 22d day of Jul>, 1909, at said city, the defendants committed "the crime of misdemeanor, to wit, in. being a disorderly person as defined by section 139 of chapter 269 of Laws of 1.90-2, in that at said time and place the said defendants did keep a 'disorderly house," and so concertedly kept and maintained the same for one year prior thereto.- A warrant was issued, and the defendants were arraigned and advised of their rights to have counsel and to have an examination and to plead guilty or not guilty, and were also informed that they had the right to a jury trial. The defendants insisted that the court had no jurisdiction to try the offense of which they were charged, and stated that they desired to waive examination and to give bail to await the action of the grand jury. The court held that he had jurisdiction to try the offense, and that the defendants were not entitled' to give bail to await the action of the grand jury, and told the defendant* that they might have a jury impaneled if they so desired. A jury was impaneled, and it rendered a verdict of guilty, and the defendants were each sentenced to the Albany county penitentiary for the period of three months, and, in addition, to pay a fine of $50 or stand committed until paid. After such conviction and sentence, the attorney for the defendants presented an affidavit to a justice of this court, as prescribed by sections 749-763 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an allowance of an. appeal to the County Court of Clinton county, which was granted, and, on such appeal, the conviction was affirmed, and the defendants now appeal to this court.
The affidavit upon which the appeal was allowed states that the defendants were convicted of the crime of misdemeanor, to wit, being disorderly persons, in that they and each of them did within said city of Plattsburgh keep and maintain a disorderly house, and the errors complained of are that the defendants were not permitted to waive examination and give bail to appear before the grand jury of the county because the court had no jurisdiction to try the offense of which they were charged; the same being triable, if at all, after indictment by a common-law jury of 12 men, and, further, that the district attorney who appeared in behalf of the prosecution was permitted in summing up to go outside the record and make statements prejudicial to the defendants.
It is the settled practice that on appeals from convictions in Courts of Special Sessions and by magistrates and police justices only such errors will be considered as are specified in the affidavit upon which the appeal is allowed. People v. Jewett, 69 Hun, 550, 23 N. Y. Supp. 942; People v. McGann, 43 Hun, 55; People ex rel. Baker v. Beatty, 39 Hun, 476. The remarks made by the district attorney in summing up to the jury were not of such a character as to require a reversal of the judgment and conviction.
The defendants were not entitled to waive examination and give.bail to appear before the grand jury on the dharge of committing the misdemeanor of being disorderly persons in the city of Plattsburgh, or to have such charge made against them presented by indictment and tried by a common-law jury of 12 men. The charter of the city of Plattsburgh (chapter 269, Laws 1902) creates a city judge, and establishes a city court. Sections 138 and 139 define the jurisdiction of the city judge in criminal matters. Section 139 contains a long list of acts prohibited within the city of Plattsburgh, 'such as keepjng disorderly houses, public intoxication, riotous conduct, loitering, disturbance of public irieetings, defacing buildings or city property, horse racing, and the like, the doing of which is declared to make one a disorderly person. The section concludes in the following language:
"Every person found guilty of being a disorderly person as aforesaid and any person guilty of any act or. acts making such person a disorderly person as herein declared, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof punished as in this act provided.''
The section further provides that, when any person charged or complained against as a disorderly person shall be arrested .or brought before the city judge, he "shall proceed forthwith to hear, try, and determine the complaint or charge on which such person is arrested," and, on conviction, the offender can be punished by fine not exceeding $50, or by imprisonment in the county jail of Clinton county not exceeding 6 months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The affidavits upon which the appeal was allowed do not complain of the manner of trial of the defendants, or allege that it was error for the city judge to organize a Court of Special Sessions with a jury of six men to try the defendants. The only ground of lack of jurisdiction set forth is that there was no jurisdiction at all, because the defendants were entitled to waive examination and give bail to appear before the grand jury. This they were manifestly not entitled to do. The affidavit upon which the appeal was allowed not setting forth any errors requiring a reversal of the conviction, it follows, that it must be affirmed.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.