Danziger v. Protestant Episcopal House of Mercy of City of New York

• Decision Date: 06 October 1891
• Citation: 28 N.E. 473,128 N.Y. 180
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. DANZIGER v. PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL HOUSE OF MERCY OF CITY OF NEW YORK.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

128 N.Y. 180

28 N.E. 473

PEOPLE ex rel. DANZIGER

v.PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL HOUSE OF MERCY OF CITY OF NEW YORK.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 6, 1891.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, first department.

Application of Jettie Danzige for a writ of habeas corpus to the Protestant Eqiscopal House of Mercy of the city of New York. From a judgment of the general term, confirming an order of the special term discharging Mollie Danziger from defendant's custody, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Charles Steckler, for relator.

Elbridge T. Gerry, for defendant.

RUGER, C. J.

The sole question in this case is whether the defendant, a benevolent institution, had legal authority for detaining Mollie Danziger, a female infant over the age of 12 years, committed to its custody by a police justice of the city of New York. The question arose upon returns made by the defendant and committing magistrate to a writ of habeas corpus and certiorari. The undisputed evidence showed that Mollie Danziger, a female infant of the age of 16 years, was arrested on the 8th day of August, 1890, and was brought before ANDREW J. WHITE, a police justice of the city of New York, on the 10th day of August thereafter, and tried for the offense of being found in a reputed house of prostitution, and in danger of becoming morally depraved, and was convicted of the charge, and committed to the Protestant Episcopal House of Mercy of New York by such magistrate, to remain under the guardianship of said institution during her minority, unless sooner discharged by the trustees or managers thereof. The act under which such conviction was had reads as follows: ‘Whenever any female over the age of twelve years shall be brought by the police, or shall voluntarily come before a committing magistrate in the city of New York, and it shall be proved to the satisfaction of such magistrate by the confession of such female, or by competent testimony, that such female [ First] is found in a reputed house of prostitution or assignation, * * * and is in danger of becoming morally depraved, * * * such magistrate * * * may thereupon commit such female * * * to the Protestant Episcopal House of Mercy of New York; * * * and said institution is authorized to receive and hold females committed under this act.’ It was also provided that ‘every commitment made under this act shall state the name and age of the female so committed, together with the cause of her commitment, and shall designate the institution to which she shall be committed, * * * and such commitment shall also state the term of the commitment: * * * provided, however, that no commitment made under the act, which shall recite the facts upon which it is based, shall be deemed or held to be invalid by reason of any defect or imperfection in form.’ Chapter 353, Laws 1886. Writs of nabeas corpus and certiorari were duly issued and served upon the defendant and the committing magistrate, requiring them to make returns of the time and cause of the imprisonment and detention of the said Mollie Danziger to a justice of the supreme court. The said defendant made return to such writs that it had the said Mollie Danziger in its custody by virtue and authority of the mandate of ANDREW J. WHITE, a police justice of the city of New York, a copy of which was attached to said return. This commitment was, substantially, in the following words: ‘Whereas, Mollie Danziger, a female of the age of sixteen years, was, on the 10th day of August, 1890, duly brought before me, charged before me, upon the allegation under oath of Thomas J. Crystal, that the said female, Mollie Danziger, on the 8th day of August, 1890, at the city and county aforesaid, was found in a reputed house of prostitution, situated at 119 Mulberry street, in said city of New York, and is in danger of becoming morally depraved, and I, having in due form of law examined said complainant and the witnesses before me produced, and also the said female, who was duly produced for my personal inspection, pursuant to law, and it appearing and having been proven to me to my satisfaction by competent testimony and evidence, and by the confession of such female, that she was of the age of sixteen years and was on the day aforesaid found in a reputed house of prostitution at number 119 Mulberry street, in said city of New York, and was in danger of becoming morally depraved: Now, therefore, I do adjudge that the allegations set forth and stated to have been proved are true, and that it is for the welfare of said female that she be placed in a reformatory;’ and she was therefore commanded to be delivered into the custory of the said Protestant Episcopal House of Mercy, to be and remain in its custody during her minority, unless sooner discharged by the trustees or managers thereof. This commitment was signed by the said justice under his hand and seal. The justice also made return to the writs, wherein he stated that on said 10th day of August, 1890, ‘I examined orally the said complainant and the witnesses before me produced, in due form of law, and also the said child, who was duly produced for my personal inspection, and it then and there appeared, and was conclusively proven to my satisfaction by competent testimony and evidence, that the material allegations set forth and charged in said complaint were true, and that thereupon I did so adjudge, and did commit said child by official commitment.’ A copy of said complaint was also returned, whereby it appeared that said Thomas J. Crystal was duly sworn on said 10th day of August, 1890, and deposed and testified that he belonged to the Sixth precinct police, and that on the 8th of August, 1890, at the city of New York, in the county of New York, one Mollie Danziger, now present, being a female actually and apparently over the age of 12 years and under the age of 21 years, to-wit, of the age of 16 years, was by deponent found in a reputed house of prostitution at No. 119 Mulberry street, in said city of New York, and is in danger of becoming morally depraved. This deposition was signed by said Crystal, and purported to be sworn to before said magistrate at said trial.

The counsel for the petitioner makes several points as to the sufficiency of the return to authorize the imprisonment of the accused female, and, among other things, claims that the evidence given before the justice on the trial should have been returned, and that the language of the confession made by the prisoner should have been incorporated in the return. He also claims that the evidence of the witness Crystal was insufficient as to the reputation of the house in which he found the accused, or that she was in danger of becoming morally depraved, because the facts upon which his evidence was predicated were not returned. The character of the argument addressed to his court seems to indicate that the counsel for the petitioner supposed that the return to a writ of habeas corpus assimilated that required by a certiorari to review, and that the evidence taken on the trial should be returned. These proceedings, however, are radically different; the one being instituted for the purpose of determining whether a person detained in custody is held by legal authority, and the other for the...