People v. Everard

135 Misc. 842, 241 N.Y.S. 494, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1215

New York Court of Special Session·Decided February 20, 1930·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence shows that the acts complained of were committed in the apartment of the complainant and defendant, who are husband and wife.

We hold that this was not a public place within the meaning of sections 1458 and 1459 of the Consolidation Act (Laws of 1882, chap. 410).

Complaint dismissed on the law, facts examined and no errors found. Defendant discharged.

All concur; present, McInerney, Herbert and Healy, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The evidence shows that the acts complained of were committed in the apartment of the complainant and defendant, who are husband and wife.

We hold that this was not a public place within the meaning of sections 1458 and 1459 of the Consolidation Act (Laws of 1882, chap. 410).

Complaint dismissed on the law, facts examined and no errors found. Defendant discharged.

All concur; present, McInerney, Herbert and Healy, JJ.

People v. Everard, 135 Misc. 842, 241 N.Y.S. 494, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1215 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1930).

Pincite

135 Misc. 842 (People v. Everard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.