Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles Bedell, Respondent, v. John F. Kinney, Sheriff of Niagara County, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1897-12
Citations: 1 Liquor Tax Rep. 242
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles Bedell, Respondent, v. John F. Kinney, Sheriff of Niagara County, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Liquor Tax Law Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 242–247

Head Matter:
Fourth Appellate Department,
December, 1897.
Reported. 24 App. Div. 309.
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles Bedell, Respondent, v. John F. Kinney, Sheriff of Niagara County, Appellant.
Writ of habeas corpus—Premature, If granted to review a sentence, the Imprisonment under a valid requirement of which has not expired.
A person who is imprisoned under a sentence for a violation of the Liquor Tax Law, legal so far as it requires his imprisonment for six months, and illegal so far as it requires his continued imprisonment for a certain period after the expiration of the six months, is not entitled until the six months have expired to a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of his imprisonment.
Ward, J., dissented.
Appeal by the defendant, John F. Kinney, sheriff of Niagara county, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Erie Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Niagara on the 7th day of May, 1897, upon the return to a writ of habeas corpus, directing that the relator be discharged from imprisonment on the 23d day of July, 1897.
Further facts are stated in the dissenting opinion.
Abner T. Hopkins, District-Attorney, for the appellant.
The respondent not appearing personally or by counsel.

Opinion:
Follbtt, J.:
The relator was sentenced January 23, 1897; the habeas was issued April 19, .1897; and May 7, 1897, the order appealed from was granted and entered, which directed that the relator be discharged July 23, 1897. It is conceded that the part of the judgment adjudging that the relator be imprisoned for six months is legal and regular. The writ of hábeas corpus is a writ oí liberty, and relief cannot be granted by virtue thereof until the relator is entitled to his liberty. The proceedings were premature, and the writ should have been dismissed. (People ex rel. O'Brien v. Woodworth, 78 Hun, 586; People v. Sutton, 24 N. Y. St. Repr. 726; S. C., 6 N. Y. Supp. 95; People ex rel. Trainor v. Baker, 89 N. Y. 460.)
' The order should be reversed and the proceedings dismissed.
All concurred, except Ward, J., dissenting.