Case Name: The People ex rel. Michael Baron, Relator v. The Warden of the City Prison of the City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-10
Citations: 56 Misc. 108
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. Michael Baron, Relator v. The Warden of the City Prison of the City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 56
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
The People ex rel. Michael Baron, Relator v. The Warden of the City Prison of the City of New York, Respondent.
(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
October, 1907.)
Arrest on criminal charge — Examination and commitment for trial — Sufficiency of evidence to hold prisoner.
A commitment by a magistrate of a person arrested on a criminal charge, based upon the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant, is good though the crime is one for which a conviction cannot he had unless the testimony of the complainant is corroborated.
Hearing upon writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of detention.
Michael Kaufman, for relator.
Robert S. Johnstone, Assistant District Attorney, for respondent.

Opinion:
Ford, J.
Relator is held under a commitment of a city' magistrate, after examination, on a charge of felony. The crime charged is one in which, by statute, the testimony of the complainant must be corroborated to justify a conviction. It was conceded by relator's counsel upon the argument that the testimony of complainant upon the examination covered all the requisite elements of the crime charged. Eelator's counsel contends that there - was no legal corroboration. Upon that phase of the ease, I agree with him. Nevertheless I am of the opinion that the writ must be dismissed. In the case of People ex rel. Perkins v. Moss, 187 N. Y. 410, principally relied upon by relator, the court held that the writ should have been sustained because there was no legal evidence of the commission of the crime charged on account of lack of proof of intent — an essential element of the alleged larceny. Here there is no such hiatus. Lack of corroborative testimony becomes essential upon the trial only, and the Perkins case does not change the rule in this regard.
The writ is dismissed and the prisoner remanded.
Writ dismissed.