Case Name: In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus of WALTER JENNINGS
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1877-03
Citations: 17 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 310
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus of WALTER JENNINGS.
Judges: Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred in tbe result.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 17
Pages: 310–310

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus of WALTER JENNINGS.
Oou/i't of Qemral Sessions, of New Toi’Tc city — jurisdiction of — presumptions.
Certiorari to review proceedings on habeas corpus, in wbicb tbe writ was dismissed.
■ Tbe commitment on wbicb tbe relator was held showed, tbat at a Court of General Sessions held in and for tbe city and county of New York, tbe recorder presiding, it was adjudged, on tbe confession of tbe relator, tbat be was guilty of burglary in tbe third degree and that be was duly sentenced. It was claimed by the relator tbat tbe commitment was insufficient, because tbe General Sessions is an inferior court, and all tbe facts necessary to give it jurisdiction of tbe offense stated should have been set out.
Tbe court at General Term said: “This view is erroneous. Tbe confession of tbe relator is itself an admission of tbe jurisdiction of tbe court. If it were not, tbe result must be tbe same, because tbe Court of General Sessions is one of general criminal jurisdiction, having tbe power to bear, determine and punish according to law all crimes and misdemeanors whatsoever, including crimes punishable with death or imprisonment in tbe State prison for life. (3 R. S. [5th ed.], 810.) Tbe crime of burglary in tbe third degree is one of wbicb tbat court can take jurisdiction if committed within tbe county, and all presumptions are in favor of tbe jurisdiction exercised therefore, and of tbe validity of tbe judgment pronounced in reference to it. This presumption arises from its general criminal powers. (The People ex rel. Tweed v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y., 559.) Tbe traverse did not present an issue on tbe subject, and tbe presumption was not rebutted.”
William F. Howe, for the relator. B. K. Phelps, for tbe respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Brady, J.;
Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred in tbe result.
Proceedings affirmed and cerüorwri dismissed.