#### People ex rel. Frank White, Relator, *v.*The Board of Managers, etc., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, Monroe Special Term,

February, 1913.)

Jurisdiction — County Court of Monroe county — order to show cause according to Laws of igio, chap. 6ii.

Chapter 611 of the Laws of 1910, conferring jurisdiction on the County Court of Monroe county to adjudicate upon all eases of children in said county under sixteen years of age who are delinquent, etc., is constitutional.

Where, in a proceeding duly taken under said statute, a child under sixteen years of age was pronounced a delinquent and placed on probation, a proceeding thereafter taken by which he was charged before a magistrate with petit larceny upon an information neither sworn to nor signed is void, so far as the jurisdiction of the magistrate is concerned.

But where upon due certification of the information, warrant and order of transfer with a cash bail to the County Court of Monroe county a summons was again issued to said child and his parents ordering him, by name, to show cause why he should not be dealt with according to chapter 611 of the Laws of 1910, and he and his mother did not appear in court on the trial and he was committed to the State Industrial School, such commitment is valid, without regard to whether the proceeding before the magistrate was valid or invalid.

What purported to be a judgment certified from the records of the county clerk’s office as a correct copy of the judgment on record in said office, though not otherwise authenticated, was sufficient.

Habeas Corpus to determine the legality of the commitment of Annis White to the State Industrial School.

Howard H. Widener, for relator.

John W. Barrett, District Attorney, for defendant.

Benton, J.

The relator contends that chapter 611 of the Laws of 1910 is unconstitutional. Hnless its unconstitutionality is very clear, courts of first instance should not *495so hold. The contention of the relator in this regard is overruled.

The relator also contends that the County Court did not have jurisdiction of Annis White as there was not on file at the time proof of any service upon him. The proceeding was begun by petition of a third person, Charles J. Saunders, charging, said Annis White with what in an adult would be petit larceny. The summons provided bv the stati ute was issued and the child with its parents, personally, appeared in court. At such proceeding the child was pronounced a delinquent and placed upon probation. Thereafter, a proceeding was begun before James E. Martin, justice of the peace of the town of Cates, charging said Annis White with petit larceny in stealing twelve chickens. The warrant was issued by said Martin. The information does not appear to have been sworn to or signed; hence, the proceeding is void so far as Martin’s jurisdiction is concerned. He, however, certified the information, warrant and order of transfer with ten dollars cash bail to the County Court and thereupon a summons was again issued directed to Annis White and his parents, by name, ordering him to show cause why he should not be dealt with according to chapter 611, Laws of 1910, The child with his mother did not appear in court and on the trial he was committed to the State Industrial School.

It is urged that the whole proceeding before the justice was invalid. Even if this were true, it did not invalidate the proceeding before the County Court. It matters not how the matter of the violation of the probation was brought to the attention of the County Court, it can act, provided there is reasonable proof that there has been a violation of its order or mandate admitting a child or adult to probation. I hold, therefore, it is immaterial whether or not the proceeding before the justice was valid or invalid. ¡Notice of the accusation of the crime being brought to the attention of the court, it had authority to act and it did so act.

It is also claimed that there is no judgment of any court whereby the board of managers was authorized to. receive and hold the child. What purports to be the judgment- is *496certified from the records of the clerk’s office by the county clerk. It is not signed by any person, nor is its authenticity otherwise certified by the county clerk than that it is a correct copy of the judgment on record in his office. The judgment, however, seems to be sufficient within the authority of People ex rel. Trainer v. Baker, 89 N. Y. 460.

The objections of the relator must, therefore, be each and all overruled, the writ dismissed, and the relator remanded to the custody of the board of managers of the State Industrial School.

• Ordered accordingly.