Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Resp'ts, v. Liscomb R. Page, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-03-16
Citations: 22 N.Y. St. Rep. 277
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Resp’ts, v. Liscomb R. Page, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 22
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Resp’ts, v. Liscomb R. Page, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
Filed March 16, 1889.)
(Criminal law—Obtaining goods under false pretences—When DISCHARGE PROPER—LAWS 1886, CHAP. 593; R. S., PART 4, CHAP. 1, TITLE 3, ART. 4, § 53.
The defendant was indicted for feloniously obtaining goods of another by means of false pretences. The indictment was found under section 53, article 4, title 3, chapter 1 of the fourth part of the Revised Statutes. He was tried and convicted in June, 1888. By Laws 1886, chapter 593, the section of the Revised Statutes under which the defendant was indicted was repealed. Held, that no penal law exists to which he is amenable, and he should be discharged.
Appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence upon an indictment for obtaining property by means of false pretences, rendered at the Warren county sessions.
J. M. Whitman, for app’lt; C. R. Patterson and A. D. Wait, for the people.

Opinion:
Landon, J.
—The defendant was indicted at the oyer and terminer, in Warren county, in February, 1874, for feloniously obtaining goods of one Peck by means of false pretences respecting his means and ability to pay. The indictment was found under section 53, article 4, title 3, chapter 1, of the fourth part of the Revised Statutes (2 R. S., m. p., 677) The defendant was tried and convicted upon the indictment at the Warren county sessions, in June, 1888. The pretences proven upon the trial were verbal and not in writing, and Peck sold the goods to the defendant.
The Penal Code took effect December 1, 1882. By section 528, the offense of obtaining property by false pretences is made larceny, and the punishment prescribed differs from that prescribed by the section of the Revised Statutes under which the defendant was indicted.
The defendant, therefore, could not have been tried under the ex post facto law of the Penal Code. And if he had. been, he could not have been convicted because section 544 provides: "A purchase of property by means of a false pretense, is not criminal where the false pretense relates to the purchaser's means or ability to pay, unless the pretense is"' made in writing, and signed by the party to be charged.. Section 544.
The trial court held, that the provisions of the Revised. Statutes governed the case. Section 725 of the Penal Code: provides: "Nothing in this Code affects any of the provisions of the following statutes; but such statutes are recognized as continuing in force, notwithstanding the provisions of this Code; except so far as they have been repealed or affected by subsequent laws. 4. All acts defining and providing for the punishment of offenses, and not defined and made punishable by this Code."
If this section kept the provisions of the Revised Statutes-respecting the offense of obtaining property by false pretense in force, it did so only until June 5, 1886. By chapter 593 of the Laws of that year, all of title first, second, third, fourth and fifth, of chapter first of the fourth part of the-Revised Statutes, was repealed. This repealed the section under which the defendant was indicted and tried. Nothing in the Penal Code or Code of Criminal Procedure could be effective to prevent a subsequent legislature from repealing-a statute which those Codes sought to perpetuate.
The statute, therefore, under which the defendant was indicted, had ceased to exist before his trial took place. No-different statute enacted .after he committed the acts for which he was indicted could be invoked againt him. He- , therefore escapes because no penal law exists to which he-is amenable for the acts proved against him. Hartung v. The People, 22 N. Y., 95.
Conviction and sentence reversed, and as no conviction, can be had, the defendant must be discharged.
Learned, P. J., and Ingalls, J., concur.