The Washington herald., 1917-02-10
DECLINES TO AFFIRM
Child COURTS ACTION
Justice Siddon. Quashes Motions. But
Solely Because of Technically.

The case of James T. Hunter. jr., Is
years old. which has attracted city-wide
attention to the Juvenile Court of the Dis
trict. came before Justice Siddons in Dis
trict Supreme Court yesterday on two
motions filed by George E. Sullivan, coun-
sci for J. Wilmer Latimer. judge OF the
Juvenile Court
One of the motions was to strike out
the petition for a writ to certify the rec
ord for review and the other motion was
to quash the writ recently issued against
Judge Latirner, requiring him TO SEND
the papers in the case to the upper court
Attorney NJ. E. O'Brien. representing
the boy, contended that on the fnforma-
ton filed IN the case, the absolute lack
of Jurisdiction to impose any penalty was
apparent on the face of the return, since
the information did not charge any Of
fense to have been committed In the Dis
trict and that the penalty imposed was
in excess of the jurisdiction of the court
since 1t was the first offense against
young Hunter.
The charging part of the information
on which the boy was sentenced to the
National Training School for Boys durins 2
his minority, which would have meant
eight years, read as follows:
James T. Hunter, jr., minor unoer
the age of II years, late OF the Dfslrlct
of Columbia on Ninth street northwest
ala engage In disorderly conduct con-
trary to and in violation Of an act OF
Congress"
This has been attacked as illegal.
Tn. motion to strike out the petition
for the writ of certiorari was on the
ground that 1t was scandalous and dlsre-
spectfpL Justice siddons decided tnat ne
saw nothing direspectful with the excep-
tion of one paragraph, which had referred
10 the court accepting neighborhood testi-
nony as evidence. This paragraph was
modified, and the court permitted AT
torney Sullivan his motion.
Time Not Material.
In the motion to quash, Mr.. sullivan
took the position that no matter what er-
rors might have been committed oy Judge
Latiner regarding the Judgment against
young Hunter. the writ OF ceruorarl
should be Quashed because tnose I eo.
should have been corrected by an appeai
10 the Court of Appeals; and that the
fact that the time had elapsed to take
the appeal made no difference.
JustIce Sjddons decided that he would
have to ouash the writ no matter now
irregular the proceeding or the JuVehlie
Court might have been, or what errors
of law might appear on the record "nicn
might have been taken advantage Oh oy
appeal
ATTORNEY O'Brien vigorously protested
and said that proper judgment in that
case would be for Justice Siddons to al
firm the action Of the Juvenile Court.
This was not done, and the writ was
simply quashed on the ground that GER
tiorari was not the proper remedy.
Counsel for the boy noted an appeal
and a supersedeas bond was fixed IN the
sum of $500, which prevents the Juvenile
Court from taking any action in the case
pending the decision Of the Court OF APP
pesls, provided the appeal Is perfected
Many Washington attorneys who are
interested in the proceedings in this case
and who have criticised numerous actions
OF the Juvenile Court on the ground OF
their alleged illegality, declare 1t absurd
to talk about appealing from the tudg-
ment of the Juvenile Court as such an
appeal is only allowed on technical
writ OF error granted on a bill of excep-
tiOns.
1t is generally known, it is declared,
that it requires a very technical lawyer
to prepare a bill of exceptions, so that
unless child is represented by counsel
at a hearing, which is a rare exception,
there is scarcely any chance for appeal
from the Juvenile Court.