People v. Wade

New York Court of Special Session

People v. Wade

127 Misc. 593, 217 N.Y.S. 486, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 676

DecidedJuly 6, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 127 Misc. 593 (People v. Wade) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Special Session primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Wade, 127 Misc. 593, 217 N.Y.S. 486, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 676 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

For selling intoxicating liquor to a police officer in premises located in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York, and known as the Turf Club, the defendant was charged with and convicted of disorderly conduct defined by subdivision 2 of section 722 of the Penal Law (as amd. by Laws of 1924, chap. 476) as follows:

“ In cities of five hundred thousand inhabitants or over any person who with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned, commits any of the following acts shall be deemed to have committed the offense of disorderly conduct:

“ 2. Acts in such a manner as to aimoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others.”

The police officer went to the premises in question for the purpose of obtaining evidence against the place for any violation of law that might occur therein. He in fact obtained evidence of a [594]*594violation of the Revised Statute known as the Volstead Act (41 U. S. Stat. at Large, 307, chap. 285, tit. 2) and charged him with this crime in the Federal court. It cannot be said that the acts of the defendant annoyed, or obstructed, or disturbed or were offensive to the police officer. The other persons in the premises were also served with and were drinking intoxicating liquor and there is no evidence that they were annoyed, disturbed, interfered with or offended by such acts. In fact it clearly appears from the record that the only crime committed by the defendant was a violation of a Federal statute known as the Volstead Act of which the magistrate had no jurisdiction (People v. Conti, 127 Misc. 244, 260), and for which as above stated the defendant was prosecuted in the Federal court.

Judgment of conviction appealed from reversed on the law and the facts.

All concur; present, Eernochan, Ch. J., McInerney and Herbert, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

For selling intoxicating liquor to a police officer in premises located in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York, and known as the Turf Club, the defendant was charged with and convicted of disorderly conduct defined by subdivision 2 of section 722 of the Penal Law (as amd. by Laws of 1924, chap. 476) as follows:

“ In cities of five hundred thousand inhabitants or over any person who with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned, commits any of the following acts shall be deemed to have committed the offense of disorderly conduct:

“ 2. Acts in such a manner as to aimoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others.”

The police officer went to the premises in question for the purpose of obtaining evidence against the place for any violation of law that might occur therein. He in fact obtained evidence of a [594]*594violation of the Revised Statute known as the Volstead Act (41 U. S. Stat. at Large, 307, chap. 285, tit. 2) and charged him with this crime in the Federal court. It cannot be said that the acts of the defendant annoyed, or obstructed, or disturbed or were offensive to the police officer. The other persons in the premises were also served with and were drinking intoxicating liquor and there is no evidence that they were annoyed, disturbed, interfered with or offended by such acts. In fact it clearly appears from the record that the only crime committed by the defendant was a violation of a Federal statute known as the Volstead Act of which the magistrate had no jurisdiction (People v. Conti, 127 Misc. 244, 260), and for which as above stated the defendant was prosecuted in the Federal court.

Judgment of conviction appealed from reversed on the law and the facts.

All concur; present, Eernochan, Ch. J., McInerney and Herbert, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 Misc. 593, 217 N.Y.S. 486, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wade-nyspecsessct-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack