Com. v. Griffith

• Decision Date: 04 January 1910
• Citation: 204 Mass. 18,90 N.E. 394
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. GRIFFITH.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

204 Mass. 18

90 N.E. 394

COMMONWEALTH v. GRIFFITH.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 04, 1910

COUNSEL

Michael J. Dwyer, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

J. A Brackett, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

The defendant was convicted upon a complaint for the unlawful employment of children. One Antrim Short, a boy 9 years of age, took a speaking part between the hours of 8 and 10 o'clock in the evening, in a play produced by the defendant, as manager, at the Majestic Theater in Boston. The company in which he appeared played an engagement at this theater for two weeks, commencing Monday, April 5, 1909. Antrim resided with his father and mother in New York City and came to Boston, with his father, to take part in this play as stated above. He was not paid wages or a compensation for his appearance, but his appearance was with the sanction of his father, who also appeared as an actor in the same cast in which Antrim appeared, and Antrim's participation in the play was a part of his training for the dramatic profession. The defendant procured the boy to appear in the play as above stated. This was the subject of the first count in the complaint.

The second count alleged similar facts as to the employment of Grace Shanley, a girl 13 years of age, who appeared in the same cast of the same play as did the boy Antrim, between the hours of 8 and 10 o'clock in the evening, in a speaking part. The facts in reference to her were the same as those in reference to Antrim, except that her appearance was with the knowledge and consent of her mother, an actress who also took part in the play, and who was paid a certain compensation by the week for the services of herself and her daughter. This engagement was for two weeks. The defendant asked the court to rule that, on the facts, he could not be convicted upon either count. He excepted to the refusal so to rule, and to the submission of the case to the jury under an instruction that the facts would warrant a conviction.

The complaint was under Rev. Laws, c. 106, § 28, as amended by St. 1905, p. 190, c. 267. A part of the section which is relied on is as follows: 'No child under the age of fourteen years shall be employed at work performed for wages, or other compensation, to whomsoever payable, during the hours when the public schools of the city or town in which he resides are in session, or be employed at work before six o'clock in the morning, or after seven o'clock in the evening.' The last clause of the sentence is the one deemed applicable to the present case.

The defendant contends that this is not an absolute provision of general application, but that it relates only to employment in some factory, workshop or mercantile establishment, such as is referred to earlier in the section. He also contends that it is not applicable to work in a theatrical exhibition because of the prohibition of employment of children in certain things connected with such exhibitions that appears in Rev. Laws, c. 106, § 45, and he argues that, if applied to such exhibitions, it would be inconsistent with this last section. We are of opinion that neither of these contentions is well founded. By St. 1888, p. 301, c. 348, § 2, where this provision appears at the beginning of a section which then goes on to deal with other subjects, it is made plain that this is an absolute and general prohibition. The language there is: 'No child under fourteen years of age shall be employed in any manner before the hour of six o'clock in the morning or...