
    In the Matter of an Application for the Commitment of Frank Ellison Brooks, an Alleged Insane Person, under a Criminal Charge. Edward S. Cooper, Appellant; The People of the State of New York, Respondent.
    Third Department,
    May 24, 1907.
    ■ Incompetent person — appeal—brother of imprisoned criminal not prejudiced by denial of investigation as to mental condition—appeal dismissed when sentence has expired.
    The brother of one convicted.of crime is not aggrieved thereby, and no substantial right of his is añected by the denial of an application for an investigation ■ into the mental condition of the criminal. ■ ■
    When the sentence has expired and the person imprisoned is discharged, an appeal from an order denying an application for an investigation into his mental condition is academic.
    . Appeal by the petitioner, Edward S'. Cooper, from an order made by the county judge of Tioga county and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Tioga on the 8th day of April, 1907, denying the petitioner’s application for an investigation as to the mental condition of Elias S. Cooper, under the assumed name of Frank Ellison Brooks; an alleged insane person.
    The petitioner is a brother .of the alleged insane person, who Was sentenced by a justice of the peace of the town of Owego” tó .the county jail of Tioga county on December !!, 1906, for a term of four months for the crime of petit larceny. The petition to investigate his sanity was presented to the county judge of Tioga county on the 3d day of April," "1907, and had attached to it the affidavits of two physicians to the effect that he was irresponsible and unable to determine between right and. wrong. The county judge thereupon made two personal examinations of the prisoner, and also procured the affidavit of the jail physician who had seen the prisoner frequently since his confinement, to the effect that he had never observed any acts or declarations on the part of the.prisoner which, impressed him as being irrational, even in the slightest degree. The county judge, on the 8th day of April, 1907, denied the application, and from the order denying it the petitioner has appealed. '
    
      John M. Parker, for the appellant.
    
      F. W. Clifford and Stephen S. Wallis, for the respondent.
   Chester, J.:

. There are at least two sufficient reasons why this appeal must be dismissed:

First. The petitioner is in no sense a party aggrieved by the ■ order- appealed from nor does it affect any substantial right of his. Heither his liberty nor any property right of his is affected by such order, and no statute appears giving a petitioner, under such circumstances, a right to appeal. . .

Second. The term of imprisonment of the prisoner has now expired and he has been discharged therefrom.. .Only abstract questions are, therefore, presented for determination if we are to consider the matter on the merits. This we should not be called upon to do. For these reasons the appeal must be dismissed.

All concurred.

Appeal dismissed.  