State v. Rose

52 So. 165, 125 La. 1080, 1910 La. LEXIS 594
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided April 11, 1910·No. No. 18,118·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

MONROE, J.

Defendant having been charged, by affidávit, with having, willfully and unlawfully, permitted certain minors to “perform” on the stage of the Winter Garden Theater, and having been convicted and sentenced, presents his ease to this court by means of five bills of exception, which, in effect, bring up for decision two propositions of law, as follows: He excepted to the overruling of a motion (called “demurrer”) to dismiss the affidavit, as setting forth no offense against the law of this state, and he, subsequently, excepted, on the same ground, to the overruling of his objection to the introduction of testimony, and of a motion to strike out testimony which had been admitted, in support of the affidavit; the basis of the motions and objections being that, whereas the law (Act No. 301 of 1908) makes it an offense to permit a minor, under the age of 14 years, to “labor or work” in a theater, the affidavit charges the defendant with having permitted such minors to “perform” on the stage of a theater. Another exception was taken to the overruling of a motion in arrest of judgment, in which, defendant alleges, inter alia, “that it is nowhere charged that the children, who were permitted to perform and play in the Winter Garden Theater were either ‘delinquent’ or ‘neglected’ children,” and hence that the juvenile court was without jurisdiction in the premises. As we find the bill last mentioned determinative of the case here presented, we shall devote our attention to its consideration, to the exclusion of the others.

Act No. 83 of 1908 is entitled:

, “An act regulating the care, treatment and control of neglected and delinquent children, seventeen years of age and under, and providing for the trial of adults charged with the violation of laws for the protection of the physical, moral and mental well-being of children. * * * ”

Section 9 of the act provides:

“That the juvehile court * * * shall have jurisdiction of all neglected and delinquent children, and of all persons charged with contributing to the neglect or delinquency of such children, or with a violation of any law now in existence or hereafter enacted for the protection of the physical, moral and mental well being of such children, not punishable by death or at hard labor, and of all cases of desertion or non support of children, by either parent.” (Italics by the court.)

It will be seen from the foregoing that the text of the statute is not as broad, in some respects, as the title, since the title describes an act “providing for the trial of adults charged with the violation of laws for the protection of the physical, moral and mental well-being of children,” whilst the text confers jurisdiction only for the [1083] trial -of “neglected and delinquent children and persons charged with contributing to the neglect or delinquency of such children, or with a violation of any law * * * enacted for the protection of * * * such children.’’ (Italics by the court.) The jurisdiction of the court is, therefore, confined to matters and offenses relating to “neglected and delinquent” children, and does not extend to offenses against, or which concern, children who are neither neglected nor delinquent. And, apparently, to clinch the matter, the statute quoted, in the paragraphs (of section 9) immediately following that which confers the jurisdiction, defines the terms “neglected” and “delinquent” as follows:

“The term ‘neglected’ child shall mean any child, seventeen years of age and under, found destitute or dependent on the public for support or without proper guardianship, or whose home, by reason of the neglect, cruelty or depravity, or indigence, of its parents, guardians or other persons, is ■ an unfit place for such child, or having a single surviving parent undergoing punishment for crime, or found wandering about the streets, at night, without being on any lawful business.
“The term ‘delinquent’ child shall mean any child, seventeen' years of age and under, not now or hereafter inmates of a state institution, found begging or receiving alms, or being in any street, road, or public place for the purpose of begging or receiving alms, or peddling any articles, or singing or playing on any musical instrument, in any street, road, or public place, for alms, or accompanying any person so engaged; or found living in any house of prostitution, or with any vicious or disreputable person, or frequenting the com-, pany of reputed criminals, or prostitutes, or visiting any saloon or place of entertainment where spirituous liquors or wines or intoxicating or malt liquors are sold, exchanged or given away; or found in any policy shop, pool room, bucket shop, race track, or where any gambling game or gambling 'devices is operated ; or found habitually wandering around any railroad tracks 'or yards, or jumping, or attempting- to jump, on any moving train or street car, for the purpose of stealing a ride, or entering any car or engine without any lawful authority; or found to be incorrigible or habitually using vile, obscene, or indecent language, or guilty of immoral conduct in public places or around school houses, or growing up in idleness and crime; or, who, without the consent of parents- or guardians or custodians, absents itself from its home or place_ of abode, or runs away from any state institution of charity to which it may be confined, or violates any law of the state or any ordinance of any village, town, city or parish of the state.”

Act No. 301 of 1908, § 1, provides:

“That * * * it shall be unlawful for any person * * * to require or permit * * * any child, under the age of 14 years, to labor or work in any mill, factory, mine, packing house, manufacturing establishment, workshop, laundry, millinery or dress making store or mercantile establishment in which more than five persons are employed, or in any theatre, concert hall, or in or about any place of amusement where intoxicating liquors are made or sold. * * * Any violation of this provision shall be punishable by a fine of not l'ess than $25 or more than $50 or by imprisonment,” etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Rose, 52 So. 165, 125 La. 1080, 1910 La. LEXIS 594 (La. 1910).

52 So. 165 (State v. Rose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Quinn
37 So. 2d 821 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1948)
State Ex Rel. Clayton v. Jones
188 So. 737 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1939)
State v. Campbell
148 So. 708 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1933)
In Re Owen
127 So. 619 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1930)
State v. Dunn
258 P. 553 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1927)
In Re Blackey
208 N.W. 238 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1926)
State Ex Rel. Herbert v. Renaud
103 So. 101 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1925)
Brana v. Brana
71 So. 519 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1916)
State v. Tujague
64 So. 417 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1914)
State v. Locicero
54 So. 342 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1911)
State v. Rose
52 So. 167 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1910)