People ex rel. Collins v. McLaughlin
| Decision Date | 26 January 1909 |
| Citation | 86 N.E. 1119,194 N.Y. 556 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. COLLINS v. McLAUGHLIN, Warden of City Prison of Kings County. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Habeas corpus proceedings by the People of the State of New York, on relation of Melville Collins, against William McLaughlin, Warden of the City Prison of Kings County. From an order of the Appellate Division, First Department (113 N. Y. Supp. 188), affirming an order of the Special Term (113 N. Y. Supp. 306), respondent appeals. Appeal dismissed.
John F. Clarke, Dist. Atty. (Robert H. Elder, of counsel), for appellant.
Joseph S. Auerbach, for respondent.
The relator is charged with violating section 351 of the Penal Code, chapter 507, p. 1873, Laws 1908, in that he did receive a certain sum of money, to wit, $5, bet upon a certain horse race about to be run, and which was run on the Gravesend race track, in the borough of Brooklyn, N. Y. He was arrested, sued out a writ of habeas corpus, which was duly sustained by the Special Term and Appellate Division, and he is now at liberty.
The district attorney disclaims any responsibility for the preparation of the information upon which the warrant against the defendant was issued, and asserts that he is compelled to make this a test case relating to such important act against his protest. The defendant waived examination when brought before the magistrate, and there has been no oral examination of witnesses relating to the facts and circumstances involved. There is great doubt whether the facts in this case have been so carefully and thoroughly developed as to justify a determination of the important questions discussed by counsel in this proceeding. We are of the opinion that, except in rare cases where the facts before the court cannot be materially changed, qualified, or explained, the determination of important issues ought not to be made in a habeas corpus proceeding, as it is not calculated to thoroughly develop the facts as in the case when a regular trial is had, witnesses examined and cross-examined, alleged errors reviewed on appeal, and counsel present throughout, protecting the interests of both parties.
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently announced its adherence to this doctrine. In Riggins v. United States, 199 U. S. 547, 548, 26 Sup. Ct. 147, 148, 50 L. Ed. 303, Mr. Chief Justice Fuller states: ‘Ordinarily the writ will not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Intercontinental Hotels Corp. (Puerto Rico) v. Golden
... ... era but sharply illustrated in the changing attitudes of the People of the State of New York. [15 N.Y.2d 15] The legalization of pari-mutuel ... and a gambling house considered as a criminal nuisance (People ex rel. Collins v. McLaughlin, 128 App.Div. 599, 113 N.Y.S. 188, app. dsmd. 194 ... ...
-
People ex rel. Carr v. Martin
...and pending trial upon an information or indictment which states no offense, but it is to be noted that in People ex rel. Collins v. McLaughlin, 194 N.Y. 556, 86 N.E. 1119, this court in holding that a court has power in habeas corpus proceedings to determine the sufficiency of an informati......
-
People ex rel. Howey v. Warden of City Prison
...of error or appeal except in cases involving questions of constitutional law where the facts cannot be changed (People ex rel. Collins v. McLaughlin, 194 N. Y. 556, 86 N. E. 1119), I suppose the present proceeding is maintainable under the authority of People ex rel. Perkins v. Moss, 187 N.......
-
People v. Warden of City Prison of New York
...or judge must make a final order discharging him forthwith. Code Civ. Proc. § 2043. This court held in People ex rel. Collins v. McLaughlin, 194 N. Y. 556, 557,86 N. E. 1119, 1120, that ‘except in rare cases where the facts before the court cannot be materially changed, qualified or explain......