People v. Bradford
| Decision Date | 15 July 1919 |
| Citation | 227 N.Y. 45,124 N.E. 118 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BRADFORD. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
Action by the People of the State of New York against Leroy T. Bradford. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (178 App. Div. 371,164 N. Y. Supp. 773) reversing a judgment of the Trial Term on a verdict directed for plaintiff and dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Merton E. Lewis, Atty. Gen. (W. T. Moore, of Mechanicsville, of counsel), for the People.
Frank Talbot, of Gloversville, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover a penalty for the alleged violation of section 185 of the Conservation Laws (Consol. Laws, c. 65) by defendant, through refusal to exhibit a license permitting him to hunt.
The provisions of the statute on which the prosecution rests and under which the question presented to us is to be decided provide as follows:
‘ Hunting and Trapping License. Subdivision 1. License Required.-No person or persons shall at any time hunt, pursue or kill with a gun any wild animals, * * * or engage in hunting or trapping except as herein provided, without first having procured a license so to do. * * *
The plaintiff in its pleading did not negative the fact that defendant was one of the persons described in the last provision of the statute, and a motion having been made to dismiss the complaint as not alleging a cause of action, the question has been and is presented whether with that failure it is sufficient. The determinative inquiry in this connection has been whether the provisions in favor of the persons described in the last-quoted provision of the statute constitute an exception to the general scope of the statute, or a proviso withdrawing them from the effect of the statute, and thus constituting a defense to be pleaded. We think that they constitute, as in fact they are specifically labeled, an exception, and that therefore it was necessary for the people in the complaint to negative the fact that defendant came within the exception. Rowell v. Janvrin, 151 N. Y. 60, 45 N. E. 398;People v. Stedeker, 175 N. Y. 57, 67,67 N. E. 132;United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168, 177, 21 L. Ed. 538. This question has been so satisfactorily discussed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Wood-ward at the Appellate Division that we do not deem it necessary to consider it at farther length. We have deemed it useful, however to consider the answer which we think may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Davis
...1193 [2006]). Although the murky contours of "exceptions" and "provisos" have long been the subject of debate (see People v. Bradford, 227 N.Y. 45, 48, 124 N.E. 118 [1919]; People v. Devinny, 227 N.Y. 397, 401, 125 N.E. 543 [1919]; Santana, 7 N.Y.3d at 236-237, 818 N.Y.S.2d 842, 851 N.E.2d ......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...to establish the circumstances" (People v. D'Amato, 12 A.D.2d 439, 445, 211 N.Y.S.2d 877; 22 CJS Criminal Law § 571; People v. Bradford, 227 N.Y. 45, 124 N.E. 118; People v. Kibler, 106 N.Y. 321, 324, 12 N.E. 795; Fleming v. People, 27 N.Y. 329, 332; People v. Kollender, 169 Misc. 995, 10 N......
-
People v. Kohut
...the general issue or by affirmative defense. (Compare People v. Devinny, 227 N.Y. 397, 401, 125 N.E. 543, 544 with People v. Bradford, 227 N.Y. 45, 47, 124 N.E. 118, 119; People v. Stedeker, 175 N.Y. 57, 66--67, 67 N.E. 132, 135; Fleming v. People, 27 N.Y. 329, 332--333; 1 Bishop, Criminal ......
-
People v. Prince
...665, 912 N.E.2d 1044 [2009] ; People v. Santana, 7 N.Y.3d 234, 236, 818 N.Y.S.2d 842, 851 N.E.2d 1193 [2006] ; People v. Bradford, 227 N.Y. 45, 48, 124 N.E. 118 [1919] ). Thus, "the rule of differentiation ought to be so applied as to comply with the requirements of common sense and reasona......