Case Name: The People ex rel. Bernhard Levy, Relator, v. Henry H. Preston, Sheriff of Suffolk County et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-07
Citations: 44 Misc. 267
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. Bernhard Levy, Relator, v. Henry H. Preston, Sheriff of Suffolk County et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
The People ex rel. Bernhard Levy, Relator, v. Henry H. Preston, Sheriff of Suffolk County et al., Respondents.
(Supreme Court, Kings Special Term for Motions,
July, 1904.)
Crimes — Insufficiency of a complaint on information and belief for the issue by a magistrate of a warrant and for his holding an examination.
A complaint on information and belief is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon a magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest or hold an examination of the charge.
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 oh 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.
The relator is discharged.