People v. Bishop

Decided November 18, 1830

New York Supreme Court · decided 1830-11-18

Case submitted for advice of court. This case is precisely like the last, except that the party prosecuting after conviction of (lie defendant acknowledged to have received satisfaction for the injury; on which state of facts the court of general sessions of Yales was moved that the defendant be discharged from the conviction. The court respited the recognizance of the defendant until the next general sessions, so as in the mean time to obtain the advice of this court.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1964

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1830-11-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

¶2The general sessions have no jurisdiction in this matter. The conviction remains before the special sessions, and it is (heir duty to cause their judgment to be executed. An acknowledgment of satisfaction by the injured party for the injury sustained by him after con*112viclion will not authorise any court to discharge the defendant. An offence for an assault and battery or other misdemeanor, except in certain cases, may be compromised either before or after an indictment 2 R. S. 730, § 68, et seq.; but I know of no authority to sanction a compromise after conviction.