People v. Hale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hale

136 A.D. 664, 121 N.Y.S. 473, 1910 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 107

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 4, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 136 A.D. 664 (People v. Hale) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Hale, 136 A.D. 664, 121 N.Y.S. 473, 1910 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hirschberg, P. J.:

The defendant was charged with a violation of the provisions of section 1188 of the amended charter of the city of New York (Laws of 1901, chap. 466), in refusing permission to a sanitary inspector of the department of health to enter and examine the premises of the defendant' as to their sanitary condition. The papers on appeal state that the demurrer was overruled without, written order, and that the appeal is taken from the oral order so overruling the demurrer. Aside from the question of the validity of the act which the defendant is charged with transgressing,- and which is not considered, no authority for the practice adopted by the appellant is known to the court and none is furnished in the brief. The appeal should, therefore, be dismissed, but without costs. . - -

Jeers, Bure, Thomas and Garb, JJ., concurred.

.Appeal dismissed, without costs.

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

Hirschberg, P. J.:

The defendant was charged with a violation of the provisions of section 1188 of the amended charter of the city of New York (Laws of 1901, chap. 466), in refusing permission to a sanitary inspector of the department of health to enter and examine the premises of the defendant' as to their sanitary condition. The papers on appeal state that the demurrer was overruled without, written order, and that the appeal is taken from the oral order so overruling the demurrer. Aside from the question of the validity of the act which the defendant is charged with transgressing,- and which is not considered, no authority for the practice adopted by the appellant is known to the court and none is furnished in the brief. The appeal should, therefore, be dismissed, but without costs. . - -

Jeers, Bure, Thomas and Garb, JJ., concurred.

.Appeal dismissed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D. 664, 121 N.Y.S. 473, 1910 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hale-nyappdiv-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack