Case Name: THE PEOPLE v. WILLIAM J. SHARKEY
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1874-05
Citations: 8 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 300
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE v. WILLIAM J. SHARKEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 8
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
THE PEOPLE v. WILLIAM J. SHARKEY.
Writ of eiror—certiorari—motion to dismiss—fugitive from justice.
A writ of error allowed after judgment, and 'before ihe escape of a prisoner, will not be quashed on motion of the people, though it appear that after the allowance of such writ, the prisoner escaped and fled the jurisdiction of the court.
Motion to quash and dismiss writs of error and certiorari, issued from this court to the Court of Sessions.
B. K. Phelps, district attorney, for people.
Wm. A. Beaeh, opposed.

Opinion:
Davis, P. J.:
The affidavit in the case shows, that, after judgment, and prior to the escape from jail of Sharkey, a writ of error and stay of proceedings were duly allowed by one of the justices of this court, and, that subsequent to the escape, a writ of certiorari was allowed to bring up matters dehors the record.
In the case of the application of Henry W. Genet, for a mandamus, this court have come to the conclusion that the convict, who thus escapes and remains a fugitive, cannot require, at the hands of the courts or judges, any proceeding in his favor, or insist upon any steps adverse td the prosecution, but that his rights to act adversely to the people, are waived and suspended by his own criminal conduct.
The effect of this act is to leave the case in statu, .quo, so far as action of the convict is concerned.
The court would not, therefore, take any action on his motion or behalf. But it does not follow" that courts may, on motion of the people, deprive him of the benefit of proceedings already taken before his escape. We think, therefore, that the writ of error should not be quashed.
The certiorari might properly have been denied; but as it is auxiliary to the writ, and as the court below will not be compelled to make return to either writ, until Sharkey shall be again in custody, within the jui'isdiction of the court, we think the better course is to deny the motion in both its aspects.
Bradt, J., concurred.
Motion denied.
See ante, p. 292.