
    Howell vs. The People.
    Where a person was convicted before a court of special sessions on a complaint for feloniously taking property, and neither the complaint nor warrant of arrest stated the value of the properly, or the place where the offence arose: Held, that the conviction was erroneous.
    On certiorari to a court of special sessions. A complaint in writing was made before a justice of the peace of Suffolk county, in these words: “ Suffolk county, ss: Jasper Vail being sworn says, that some time in the spring of 1835, Merritt Howell feloniously took and carried xway several loads of manure, of him, the said Jasper Tail, and converted the same to his own use. And the said Jasper prays process against the said Howell.” The justice issued a criminal warrant reciting the complaint, xvhereon Howell was arrested, and after pleading not guilty, demanded a trial by three justices. Two other justices were accordingly associated with the one who issued the warrant, and after hearing the evidence, they convicted the defendant and sentenced him to pay a fine of $6,50. It w.as now moved in behalf of the defendant that the conviction be reversed.
    Gr. Miller, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Willis Hall, (attorney general,) for the people.
   Per Curiam.

The conviction was erroneous, and must be reversed. Neither the complaint nor warrant contained enough to show that the special sessions were authorized to try the cause. If the charge intended was that of petit larceny, the value of the property taken ought to have been stated. (Powers v. The People, 4 Johns. Rep. 292.) At all events, the place where the offence arose should have appeared, that it might be seen whether in this respect the case was within the jurisdiction of the justices. (Vanderwerker v. The People, 5 Wendell, 530. Nares On Pen. Conv. 40. Boscaw. On Conv. 18, 19. Hawk. P. C. b. 2, c. 25, §§ 34, 5. 1 Chit. Cr. Law, 41. Lenthal’s case, Cro. Eliz. 137. 1 Bulst. 205.)

Conviction reversed.  