The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1922-09-03
AGE OF DISCRETION
TUDICIALLY FIXED
BY WILLIAM M'MURTRIE sPEER.

pose her little brother TO the danger
OF street traffic. The court held that
none of these defenses was good as y
matter of law. The nine-and-a-halt-
year-old sister was not Of such an e~-
tremely tender age as to place IL De
yond a doubt that she was not compe-
tent to look after her little brother
The -year-old boy was too youn.
TO be guilty OF contributory negligence
The evidence showed that the girl hao
done the best she could to keep, hel
little brother from being hurt, and ~
was not as a matter OF law negligence
in the parents TO send her." The cour,
here decided that young child wa
mot sui juris or responsible for H.
own conduct"
In the later Costello case CHIEF
Judge Parker wrote, "as he was only
s years Of age the presumption OF law
was that he was not sui juris." 1t wa
for the jury to determine whether the
Costello boy exercised "the degree O.
care and caution which should be ex-
pected from one of his age. experience
and intelligence" Needless 70 say, a.
between Costello and the Third Avenue
Railroad the jury found that the boy
had done all that could be expected OF
one of his age.
AS another Judge Of the Court o.
Appeals wrote, 1.-THE law Is not 80
unreasonable as to expect and require
the same degree Of care and circum-
spection In a child OF tender years as
in an adult A child IL mot 20 be
judged by the standard Of intelligence
and Judgment applied 10 an adult in
full possession OF his faculties" q
In view Of the schools opening soon
IL is well TO recall the decision that Il
is not as a matter Of law negligent I'm
a parent to let a child years old go
TO school without an attendant.
In the Lafferty case. whore MAJ
Irene. years old. was run over by =
street car and lost her arm. the court
affirmed verdict OF $4,000. The
railroad company there contended tina.
IL May Irene was too young 10 be re-
sponsiblc for her own acts her par.
ents were negligent In letting her 60
out In the street alone and he ex-
posed 10 the dangers Of traffic. Where
as. IL she was old enough and INTEL
ligent enough to relieve her parents
Of responsibility for watchful care
over her she was sufficiently intelli-
gent 10 be guilty OF contributory neg
ligence.
The court there defined mon sui
iuris' 70 mean that she was without
discretion or ability TO care Tor her
own safety. Tho child could have sur
ficient discretion 10 care for her own
safety as ian ordinarily intelligent
child Of her ago and intelligence under
like circumstances" hut this wouid
not impose upon her responsibility
for the same degree OF care and cir
cumspection as an adult. This re-
lieved both the parents and tho child
from the charge OF contributory neg
ligence.
It would be difficult 10 find any
jury who would hold that where n
child had been injured there could be
no recovery by reason Of the contribu-
tory negligence OF the child. II Is also
doubtful whether In a criminal case
under any circumstances q Jury would
convict a child under 10 years old
This has been recognized by providing
children's courts for children Under
the age OF i6 accused Of a crime AZ
present chlldren's civil cases are tried
In tho same courts and in tho same
manner as adults civil cases except
that the child proceeds through q
guardian appointed BY the court. who
is usually the child's father or. IL the
father is not living, some other rela-
tive.