Ogden v. State

• Decision Date: 22 February 1916
• Citation: 156 N.W. 476,162 Wis. 500
• Parties: OGDEN v. STATE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

162 Wis. 500

156 N.W. 476

OGDEN

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 22, 1916.

Error to Municipal Court of Winnebago County; A. H. Goss, Judge.

Proceeding in the matter of the delinquency of Grace Ogden. Writ of error to review an order of the juvenile court committing the plaintiff in error to the Industrial School for Girls, entered on verdict of the jury finding her delinquent as charged. Writ quashed.

Grace Ogden was proceeded against in the juvenile court and found to be a delinquent. The chief of police of the city of Oshkosh petitioned the court for an inquest concerning Grace Ogden on the charge of delinquency. A summons was served on her father and mother to appear in court with her on the 16th day of September, 1914, to answer the petition. The parties duly appeared, and it appearing from the evidence adduced that she was 18 years of age she was discharged by the court. On October 27th the chief of police filed an affidavit stating that from the records in the register of deeds office he believed that said alleged delinquent was only 17 years of age and asked that the judgment of discharge be vacated and a retrial ordered. The court made an order requiring Grace Ogden to show cause why this judgment should not be vacated and further proceedings be had. The court overruled all objections to its jurisdiction on account of prejudice and for want of power to vacate its former judgment in the case, and ordered that another inquest be had. A second inquest was had before a jury. The jury returned a verdict finding Grace Ogden delinquent as charged in the original petition. On this finding of the jury an order was entered committing Grace Ogden to the Wisconsin Industrial School for Girls, at Milwaukee, Wis. She prosecutes this writ of error to obtain reversal of that order.Byron E. Van Keuren, of Oshkosh (Menzo H. Eaton, of Oshkosh, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

W. C. Owen, Atty. Gen., and J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIEBECKER, J. (after stating the facts as above).

[1] The provisions of the statute creating the “juvenile court” and defining its powers and jurisdiction show that it is a special statutory tribunal of limited jurisdiction to deal with “dependent,” “neglected,” and “delinquent” children. The provisions of the statute prescribe a special procedure for holding inquests in all cases embraced within its jurisdiction, and for making orders for the care, custody, and commitment of these children in the various ways specified in the statute for the promoting of their physical, moral, and mental welfare. An examination of these statutes discloses that the proceedings provided to accomplish these purposes and objects are special in form and of the nature of those employed in civil actions. It is manifest from the scheme and object of this legislation that it was not intended in establishing the juvenile court to create a tribunal having the powers and characteristics of courts that exercise the jurisdiction of enforcing the criminal law. The inquests in cases in this court are not criminal in their substance and nature, but partake of the nature of those denominated in the law civil actions, and are controlled by the practice and procedure applicable in civil case...