In re van Horne

• Decision Date: 01 October 1908
• Citation: 74 N.J.E. 600,70 A. 986
• Parties: In re VAN HORNE.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

70 A. 986

74 N.J.E. 600

In re VAN HORNE.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Oct. 1, 1908.

Habeas corpus by William H. Van Home. Writ granted, and petitioner released from custody.

Pierre F. Garvan, for the State.

Robt. F. Hudspeth, for Wm. H. Van Home.

GARRISON, V. C. This is a writ of habeas corpus brought on behalf of William H. Van Home, who was apprehended and charged with the violation of section 2, c. 185, Laws 1908 (P. L. 1908, p. 375).

The section in question reads as follows: "2. Any person having the management or control of any theater or place wherein theatrical, acrobatic or vaudeville performances are given by said performers, or wherein any moving-picture show is given, his agents or servants, who shall admit thereto or permit or suffer to be or remain therein any child under the age of 16 years, unaccompanied by a parent, or guardian, or adult friend with the knowledge and consent of the parent or guardian shall be guilty of a misdemeanor: Provided, this section shall not apply to any performance given by or under the auspices of any public or private school or any church or Sunday school, or by any charitable organization or society, nor to entertainments held upon piers devoted to public entertainment."

The misdemeanor alleged against the prisoner was in permitting an unaccompanied child, less than 16 years of age, to be or remain in a place of amusement at 380 Jackson avenue, Jersey City, under the management and control of the prisoner, where a performance of the kind mentioned in the statute was being given.

It is claimed on behalf of the prisoner that his apprehension and detention are illegal, because that section at least of the statute in question is unconstitutional. It is claimed on his behalf that it violates the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in that it denies the equal protection of the laws; and also that it is violative of article 4, § 7, par. 11, of the Constitution of the state of New Jersey.

I have reached the conclusion that the statute is in conflict with the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional, at least so far as respects the section in question.

"Equal protection of the laws" must certainly mean equal security or burden, under the laws, to every one similarly situated.

A statute, to escape condemnation as infringing the rights guaranteed by this amendment, must bear alike upon all individuals and classes and districts that are similarly situated, in a similar manner, and with uniformity; otherwise, there would be unjust discrimination, which this constitutional...