
    The People against Schenck.
    Where a person was indicted in the city of NewYorlc, for stenlingagun, and the jury found a special verdict, that the gun was stolen in the state of New-Jersey, and bro’t by tho prisoner into this state where it was found in his possession,the court said that the prisoner was entitled to his discharge; but the> ordered him to be detained in prison three weeks, and notice thereof to he given to the executive of New Jersey, and if the prisoner should not he demanded within Chat time, that he be discharged.
    The prisoner was indicted, at a court of General Sessions of tho Peace, in the city of Neio-Yorlc, for felony, in stealing a gun, the property of one Carroll. The jury found a special verdict, that the prisoner did feloniously steal and carry away the gun, mentioned in the indictment, in the state of New-Jersey, and that the prisoner brought it afterwards into the city of New-Yorlc, and offered it for sale, but whether, &c. The proceedings having been removed into this court by certiorari.
    
    
      Rilcer, district attorney, in
    behalf of the people, moved for the judgment of the court, on the special verdict.
    
      Blake, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The question has already been decided, in the case of The People v. Gardner. The prisoner, therefore, is entitled to his discharge. But we think it proper to order, that he be detained in prison for three weeks; and in the mean time, let notice be given to the executive of the state of Neiv-Jersen, that the prisoner is j J 1 detained on a charge of felony committed in that state; and if no application be made for the delivery of the prisoner, within that time, he must be discharged. 
      
      
        Ante, p. 477.
     