
    The People ex rel. Bert Forbes, App’lt, v. John Markell, as Superintendant, etc., Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department
    
    
      Filed December 26, 1895.)
    
    1. Criminal law—Commitment—Clerical errors.
    A commitment issued by police justice is not void merely for the reason that, through a clerical error, it was dated in 1885 instead of 1895.
    3. Same—Judsmekt.
    In criminal proceeding before a police justice, the certificate of the sentence pronounced is the only record of the judgment.
    8. Same—Habeas corpus.
    Where the imprisonment is under actual process, valid on its face, it will be deemed prima faeie legal, and the prisoner must, upon habeas coi-pus proceedings, assume the burden of impeaching its validity by showing a warrant of jurisdiction in the magistrate or court whence it emanated.
    Appeal from an oredr dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and demanding relator.
    Hopkins & Bondy, for app’lt;
    George W. Standen, for resp’t.
   MERWIN, J.

In the petition of the relatbr for a writ of habeas corpus, it is alleged that he is held on a commitment issued by the police justice of the city of Syracuse, and that such commitment is illegal and void. There is no specification qf any defect, except that it is dated March 15,1885. A copy of the commitment is attached to the petition, and, on its face, it is quite apparent that the year of the date should be 1895, and that the defect was only clerical. No point is made as to this on. this appeal, or that there is any other defect upon the face of the paper. Nor is it claimed that the police court did not have jurisdiction to try the relator and issue the commitment, or that the commitment is insufficient. The main point seems to be that there was no proper judgment in the police court. By section 721, Code Cr. Proc., which relates to proceedings in courts of special sessions 'and police courts, it is provided that when a conviction is had upon a plea of guilty, or upon a trial, the court must make and sign a certificate in substantially the form as there given. By section 725 it is provided that the judgment must be executed bv the sheriff or other proper officer upon receiving a copy of such certificate, certified by the court or the county clerk. The commitment in the present case was a copy, certified as required by section 725, of a certificate substantially in the form as provided by section 721. Upon its face it was‘a judrment. By section 723 it is provided that within twenty days after the conviction the court must cause the certificate provided by section 721 to be filed in the office of the clerk of the county, and by section 724 it is provided that the certificate so made and filed, or a certified copy thereof, is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. It is not claimed that this certificate was not properly filed. The presumption is that the court, in that regard, did its duty. The burden of proof is on the relator. Ex parte Heyward, 1 Sandf. 703; People v. Cavanagh, 2 Park. Cr. R. 650, 658. People ex rel. Slatzkata v. Baker, 19 St. Rep. 485, the certificate was held to be effectual, though not filed. In People v. Neilson, 16 Hun, 214, it was held that where a return to a writ of habeas corpus shows that the relator is held under a commitment issued by a court of special sessions, after a trial and conviction by it, the only question presented is whether or not such court had jurisdiction to try the relator and issue the commitment. “Where the imprisonment is under actual process, valid on its face, it will be deemed prima facie legal, and the prisoner must assume the burden of impeaching its validity by showing a want of jurisdiction in the magistrate or court whence it emanated. If he fail in thus impeaching it, his body is to be remanded to custody. Error, irregularity, or want of form is no objection; nor is any defect Avhich may be amended or remedied by a further entry on motion.” 3 Hill, 661, note 31 and cases cited. In People ex rel. Cook v. Smith, 28 St. Rep. 306, the court, in speaking of the certificate under section 721, say:

“The statute does not require that, any judgment should be entered in the minutes of the court. In short, there is but one mode of rendering judgment, and that is by pronouncing sentence. And there is but one record of the judgment, and that is the certificate of the sentence pronounced.”

The police court Avas not a court of record, and the provisions of section 721 et seq. were eAddently intended to provide for the form and preservation of its judgments. It is reasonable to presume that the certificate set out in section 721 was designed to-be the record of the conviction. If so,-as the police justice had, concededly, jurisdiction of the person and subject-matter, the relator had no basis for relief on a Avrit of habeas corpus. The evidence, therefore, as to whether the record kept by the clerk of the police justice was insufficient or incomplete, was not important. Hor is it material to inquire whether the police justice had a right, after the present proceedings were commenced, to correct the minutes of his clerk, and make them conform to his OAvn. If the county judge erred in his rulings in regal’d to evidence on those subjects, 1 Crary Prac. (3d Ed.) 387; Hurd, Hab. Corp. (2d Ed.) 304, the relator Avas not prejudiced.

We find no good reason for disturbing the order appealed from, and it should therefore be affirmed.

Order affirmed. All concur.  