People v. Barondess

8 N.Y. Crim. 376, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 248

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Barondess. Read the opinion of the Court — 133 N.Y. 649 →

New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 15, 1892·Published

Opinions

The judgment of the general term was reversed by the court of appeals upon the dissenting opinion of Judge Daniels, and no opinion was written by the judges, as follows:

Per Curiam.

“ Order of general term reversed, and judgment of conviction affirmed, on opinion of Daniels, J., below.”

Earl, C.J., Andrews, Finch and Peckham, JJ., concur.

Gray, J., reads for affirmance of general term. O’Brien and Maynard, JJ., concur.

A dissenting opinion was written by Judge Gray, as follows :

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The judgment of the general term was reversed by the court of appeals upon the dissenting opinion of Judge Daniels, and no opinion was written by the judges, as follows:

Per Curiam.

“ Order of general term reversed, and judgment of conviction affirmed, on opinion of Daniels, J., below.”

Earl, C.J., Andrews, Finch and Peckham, JJ., concur.

Gray, J., reads for affirmance of general term. O’Brien and Maynard, JJ., concur.

A dissenting opinion was written by Judge Gray, as follows :

People v. Barondess, 8 N.Y. Crim. 376, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 248 (N.Y. 1892).

Pincite

8 N.Y. Crim. 376 (People v. Barondess) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.