133 Misc. 145, People ex rel. Krohn v. Thomas
|Citation:||133 Misc. 145, 231 N.Y.S. 271|
|Party Name:||THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. RAYMOND KROHN, Relator, v. JOHN G. THOMAS, Sheriff of Oneida County, Respondent.|
|Case Date:||November 06, 1928|
In the matter of the application of Raymond Krohn for a writ of habeas corpus.
On this application by relator for a writ of habeas corpus, it appears that pursuant to depositions and an information he was arrested on a warrant charging him with the violation of clause (f) of subdivision 4 of section 887 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in aiding and abetting prostitution. On being arraigned on November 3, 1928, he appeared generally, pleaded not guilty and was ordered detained in custody to await the result of a blood test, as required by section 343-n of article 17-B of the Public Health Law. The proceeding was adjourned to November twelfth and relator was committed to jail.
While the facts contained in the depositions and information were insufficient to give the court jurisdiction, relator's general appearance and plea of not guilty waived the defects existing in the depositions and information, and having failed to raise timely objections to the sufficiency of the depositions and information, no objection now can be made to the jurisdiction of the court.
Section 343-n of article 17-B of the Public Health Law, requiring that any person arrested charged with such an offense shall be reported by the court or magistrate before whom such person is arraigned to the health authorities and examined in accordance with section 343-m of article 17-B of the Public Health Law and detained until the results of such examination are known, is ample authority for the jurisdiction of the city judge, who, in this instance, ordered the detention of relator pending the results of the blood test.
Relator was not ordered into custody until November twelfth, the date to which the trial of the case was adjourned pending the result of the test; if the test should be negative, the court could forthwith admit the relator to bail, which would be the duty of the court to do promptly.
Under the circumstances, the writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed.
[231 N.Y.S. 272] COUNSEL
Willard R. Pratt, for the relator.
John J. McGinty, Assistant District Attorney, for the respondent.
On the 2d of November, 1928, a warrant was issued from the City Court of Utica, N. Y., against the relator
charging him with the crime of violation of clause (f) of subdivision 4 of section 887 of the Code...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP