
    SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TERM—NEW YORK,
    Oct., 1907.
    THE PEOPLE ex rel MICHAEL BARON v. THE WARDEN OF CITY PRISON etc.
    (56 Misc. 108.)
    Commitment—Uncorroborated Testimony of Complainant.
    A commitment by a magistrate of a person arrested on a criminal charge, based upon the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant is good though the crime is one for which a conviction cannot be had unless the testimony of the complainant is corroborated.
    Hearing upon writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of detention.
    Michael Kaufman, for relator.
    Robert S. Johnstone, Assistant District Attorney, for respondent.
   Ford J.

Relator is held under a commitment of a city magistrate, after examination, on a charge of felony. The crime charged is one in which, by statute, the testimony of the complainant must be corroborated to justify a conviction. It was conceded by relator’s counsel upon the argument that the testimony of complainant upon the examination covered all the requisite elements of the crime charged. Relator’s counsel contends that there was no legal corroboration. Upon that phase of the case, I agree with him. Nevertheless I am of the opinion that the writ must be dismissed. In the case of People ex rel. Perkins v. Moss, 187 N. Y. 410, principally relied upon by relator, the court held that the writ should have been sustained because there was no legal evidence of the commission of the crime charged on account of lack of proof of intent—an essential element of the alleged larceny. Here there is no such hiatus. Lack of corroborative testimony becomes essential upon the trial only, and the Perkins case does not change the rule in this regard.

The writ is dismissed and the prisoner remanded.

Writ dismissed.  