People v. Paris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Paris

181 A.D. 499, 36 N.Y. Crim. 221, 168 N.Y.S. 836, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4000

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1918

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D. 499 (People v. Paris) 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. Paris, 181 A.D. 499, 36 N.Y. Crim. 221, 168 N.Y.S. 836, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Putnam, J.:

The magistrate claiming here to try and convict this defendant, was the police justice of a police district in the town of East Hampton, L. I. Such justice has acted in this part of East Hampton without question for several years. If his jurisdiction be confined to the police district in which he was chosen it was unconstitutional. A town or village might be divided for police protection, but not for a separate court, since such portion cannot be thus dissevered from the rest of the municipality for judicial purposes. (People ex rel. Townsend v. Porter, 90 N. Y. 68.) If in order to sustain this Police Court jurisdiction we regard it as running beyond the confines of the police district and extending throughout all of East Hampton, then the principles of self-government have been violated. A fraction of the town would be erecting a local court over the rest of the inhabitants, who, having local justices of the peace provided by the Constitution (Art. 6, § 17), neither by direct vote nor by delegated power have ever consented to such additional tribunal.

The order of the County Court of Suffolk county reversing defendant’s conviction for a misdemeanor before the acting police magistrate is, therefore, affirmed.'

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Order of the County Court of Suffolk county reversing defendant’s conviction for a misdemeanor before the acting police magistrate affirmed.

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

Putnam, J.:

The magistrate claiming here to try and convict this defendant, was the police justice of a police district in the town of East Hampton, L. I. Such justice has acted in this part of East Hampton without question for several years. If his jurisdiction be confined to the police district in which he was chosen it was unconstitutional. A town or village might be divided for police protection, but not for a separate court, since such portion cannot be thus dissevered from the rest of the municipality for judicial purposes. (People ex rel. Townsend v. Porter, 90 N. Y. 68.) If in order to sustain this Police Court jurisdiction we regard it as running beyond the confines of the police district and extending throughout all of East Hampton, then the principles of self-government have been violated. A fraction of the town would be erecting a local court over the rest of the inhabitants, who, having local justices of the peace provided by the Constitution (Art. 6, § 17), neither by direct vote nor by delegated power have ever consented to such additional tribunal.

The order of the County Court of Suffolk county reversing defendant’s conviction for a misdemeanor before the acting police magistrate is, therefore, affirmed.'

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Order of the County Court of Suffolk county reversing defendant’s conviction for a misdemeanor before the acting police magistrate affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D. 499, 36 N.Y. Crim. 221, 168 N.Y.S. 836, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-paris-nyappdiv-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack