Case Name: PEOPLE ex rel. SHELDON v. CURTIN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-07-09
Citations: 136 N.Y.S. 516
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. SHELDON v. CURTIN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 136
Pages: 516–522

Head Matter:
PEOPLE ex rel. SHELDON v. CURTIN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
July 9, 1912.)
1. Adulteby (§ 16*)—Sentence and Punishment—Statutory Provision.
Though a commitment of a female to the Western House of Refuge for Women for adultery was for a term of three years, unless she shall sooner be discharged by the board of managers, and the State Charities Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 55) § 226, authorizing such commitment, pro vides that it shall not be for a definite term, but that such female may be paroled or discharged at any time after commitment by the board of managers, and shall, in any ease be detained not longer than three years, there was a substantial compliance with the statute, and the commitment was not invalid.
*For other cases see same topic & § number In Dee. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Adultery, Cent. Dig. § 37; Dec. Dig. § 16.*]
2. Adultery (§ 16*)—Sentence and Punishment—Statutory Provision.
The law establishing the Western House of Refuge for Women (State Charities Law [Consol. Laws 1909, c. 55]) provided, in section 226, for the commitment of females convicted of petit larceny, habitual drunkenness, of being a common prostitute, of frequenting disorderly houses, “or of any misdemeanor.” Held that, though the Charities Act does not specifically name adultery as one of the offenses for which a commitment may be made, the statute will be held to include any misdemeanor within the general description of the act, and a commitment to the Refuge for that offense was proper.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Adultery, Cent. Dig. § 37; Dec. Dig. § 16.*]
3. Adultery (§ 16*)—Sentence and Punishment—Statutory Provision.
State Charities Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 55) provides in section 226 for the commitment of females convicted of petit larceny and other specified offenses “or of any misdemeanor.” Pen. Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 40) § 102, provides for the punishment of adultery by imprisonment in a penitentiary or county jail for not more than six months or by fine. Held, that the punishment provided by Penal Law is not exclusive, but is concurrent, and a commitment to the House of Refuge for adultery under the Charities Act was proper.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Adultery, Cent. Dig. § 37; Dec. Dig. § 16.*]
Spring and Foote, JJ., dissenting.
•For other cases see same_topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
Appeal from Orleans County Court.
Habeas corpus by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Fay Sheldon, as next friend of Ruth Sheldon, against Alice Curtin, as Superintendent of the Western House of Refuge for Women. From an order dismissing the writ, relator appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, KRUSE, ROBSON, and FOOTE, JJ.
Kellogg & Crabb, for appellant.
C. B. Alverson, for respondent.

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
The primary question presented by this appeal is whether the relator was properly committed to the Western House of Refuge for Women, at Albion, upon her plea of guilty to the indictment for adultery, which was made a misdemeanor in this state by an amendment to the Penal Code in 1907 (Laws of 1907, c. 583), and is now embodied in the Penal Law (Penal Law, § 101, 102). The Western House of Refuge for Women was established in 1890 by chapter 238 of the Laws of 1890. By section 8 of that act, it was provided that any female between the ages of 15 and 30 years convicted of "petit larceny, habitual drunkenness, of being a common prostitute, of frequenting disorderly houses or houses of prostitution or of any misdemeanor, and who is not insane or mentally or physically incapable of being substantially benefited by the discipline of said institution," might be sentenced and committed to that institution for a term of five years, unless sooner discharged by the board of managers thereof. This provision has ever since been retained substantially in the statute law of this state, and is now embodied in the State Charities Law (Laws of 1909, c. 57; Consolidated Laws, c. 55) § 226. Section 226 of that law provides that the commitment shall not be for a definite term, but any such female may be paroled or discharged at any time after a commitment by the board of managers of such institution,, and shall not in any case be detained longer than three years.
The commitment in this case is for a term of three years, unless she shall sooner be discharged by the board of managers. While that is not literally in accordance with the language of the statute, I think it is in substance and effect.
The punishment for adultery, according to the Penal Law (section 102), is imprisonment in a penitentiary or county jail for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than $250 or both. It is contended that the provisions of section 226 of the State Charities Law for committing females to the institutions therein named apply only to the offenses specifically enumerated therein, and to misdemeanors for which no specific punishment is prescribed in the Penal Law,' and" hot to adultery, for which the Penal Law has fixed the punishment, as stated. I think the Charities Act includes any misdemeanor committed by a person within the description covered by that act. The Penal Law provides that, where the performance of an act is prohibited by statute and no penalty for the violation of such act is imposed in any statute, the doing of such act is a misdemeanor (section 29), and that a person' convicted of a crime declared to be a misdemeanor, for which no other punishment is specifically prescribed by the Penal Law, or by any other statutory provision in force at the time of the conviction and sentence, is punishable by imprisonment in a penitentiary or county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than $500, or by both.. Section 1937. In that connection it further provides, generally, that an act or omission which is made criminal and punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under any one of those provisions, but not under more than one, and a conviction or acquittal under one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other provision. Section 1938.
I think the relator could have been imprisoned or fined or both, as the Penal Law provides, or committed under the Charities Act, to the Western House of Refuge, as was done. While offenders committed to- such institutions may be detained there longer than the ordinary maximum prison sentence prescribed for the offense of which the offender is convicted, they may also be paroled or discharged at any time by the managers of the institution. Such institutions are especially designed to reform offenders of. the class to which the re lator belonged, and, while it is a means of punishment, the primary purpose is reformation. This is the more humane policy and has been adopted in other states -as well as our own and in civilized countries generally.
I think the defendant's case falls within that class, and that she was properly committed to the institution from which it is now sought to release her.
The order dismissing the writ of habeas corpus should therefore be affirmed.
MCLENNAN, P. J., and ROBSON, J., concur.