People v. Cipperly
This text of 4 N.Y. Crim. 69 (People v. Cipperly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Upon the argument of this case we were of the opinion that the respondent failed to show any ground upon which the judgment appealed from could be supported, but in view of the importance of. the question raised and difference in the court below concerning it, took further time for its consideration We still think the judgment wrong, and for reasons ' sufficiently stated by Judge Learned, who dissented in the General Term of the Supreme Court (3 N. Y. Crim. 385; 37 [70]*70Hun, 324), the judgment of that court should be reversed and the judgment of the Special Sessions affirmed.
All concur except Miller, J.
Note.—Similar statutes were held constitutional in State v. Smyth, 14 R. I. 100; 51 Am. Rep. 344; Commonwealth v. Evans, 133 Mass. 11, and State v. Newton, 45 N. J. Law. 463.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 N.Y. Crim. 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cipperly-ny-1886.