Case ID: nys_24/html/0500-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LAWRENCE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(70 Hun, 239.)
    In re EWER.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
    June 30, 1893.)
    Constitutional Law—Employment and Exhibition op Children.
    Pen. Code, § 292, making it a criminal offense for one who, as parent, has the care, custody, or control of a female child under the age of 10 years to procure or assent to the employment or exhibition of such child as a dancer, is not unconstitutional, as depriving the parent of the right to the custody and services of the child, and the child of the right to follow a lawful occupation. 19 N. Y. Supp. 933, affirmed.
    Appeal from special term, New York county.
    Application by Charlotte Ewer for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari. From orders dismissing the writs, (19 N. Y. Supp. 933,) said Ewer appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Charlotte Ewer, the appellant, was arrested upon a warrant, and taken before a police magistrate in the city of New York, June 16, 1892, charged with .a misdemeanor in violating section 292 of the Penal Code, by unlawfully exhibiting, using, procuring, and consenting to the exhibition of her daughter, Mildred Ewer, aged seven, as a dancer in the Broadway Theater in said city. She demanded an examination, upon which the charge was fully sustained, and she was thereupon held to await the action of the grand jury in default of $500 bail. Immediately, writs of habeas corpus- and certiorari were issued out of this court. The warden returned the body of the prisoner with thé commitment, and the magistrate returned the complaint, warrant of arrest, and testimony taken on the hearing. Thereupon the appellant demurred specially to the returns, alleging that’ the statute was unconstitutional, and that, upon the conceded facts, no offense had been committed. After hearing argument, Justice Andrews dismissed the writs, and remanded the prisoner, upon the grounds stated in his opinion. »
    Argued before VAN BBUNT, P. J., and O’BBIEN and LAWRENCE, JJ.
    
      A, J. Dittenhoefer and David Gerber, for appellant.
    De Lancey Nicoll, Dist. Atty., and Elbridge T. Gerry, for respondents.
   LAWRENCE, J.

As the only ground assigned for assailing the proceedings before the police magistrate is that section 292 of the Penal Code is in conflict with the provisions of the constitution, I deem it sufficient to say that, under numerous decisions of the court of appeals, the position taken by the appellant cannot be sustained. The opinion of Mr. Justice Andrews, at the special term, fully covers the case, and it is unnecessary to add anything to the reasoning therein contained. It therefore results that the orders appealed from should be affirmed. All concur.