Case Name: PEOPLE v. TAYLOR
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-02-21
Citations: 108 N.Y.S. 796
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE v. TAYLOR.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 108
Pages: 796–799

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. TAYLOR.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
February 21, 1908.)
Master and Servant—Infants—Regulation of Employment — Criminal Prosecutions of Employer — Regulations as to Age — Employer’s Knowledge and Consent.
In a prosecution of defendant, a factory superintendent, under Laws 1903, p. 437, c. 184, § 70, providing that no child between the ages of 14 and 16 years shall be employed in a factory without an employment certificate, where a child between such ages had been employed without defendant’s knowledge or consent, without such certificate being issued, evidence that defendant had directed his subordinates to comply with the law was properly excluded; the absolute duty being imposed upon defendant to see that no child was employed without complying with the statute.
Patterson, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Court of Special Sessions.
George H. Taylor was convicted of unlawfully employing child labor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, LAUGH-LIN, CLARKE, and HOUGHTON, JJ.
George H. Taylor, Jr., for appellant.
Timothy I. Dillon, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Opinion:
INGRAHAM, J.
The defendant was convicted of a violation of section 70 of the labor law (chapter 184, p. 437, Laws 1903), which provides :
"No child under the age of fourteen years shall be employed, permitted or suffered to work in or in connection with any factory in this state. No child between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years shall be so employed, permitted or suffered to work, unless an employment certificate issued as provided in this article, shall have been theretofore filed in the office of the employer at the place of employment of such child."
Upon the trial it appeared: That an assistant to the state factory inspector called at the factory of Kursheedt Manufacturing Company, and saw the defendant, who stated that he was the treasurer of the company and superintendent of the factory, and that he was in charge •of the factory and responsible for the condition thereof. The witness then went into the factory, and found a girl there named Florence De Flora. That the witness stated to the defendant that she was under 16 years of age, and had no certificate required by section 70 of the labor law. That this girl was upon the fifth floor of the building; the defendant's office being on the first floor. The girl Florence De Flora then testified that she was working for the Kursheedt Manufacturing Company; that at that time she was 15 years of age; and that she had no certificate, and none had been filed with her employer. The defendant testified on his own behalf that he had been connected with the Kursheedt Manufacturing Company for 29 years; that he had nothing to do with the employment of this girl; that the first time he saw her was on the 25th of March, the day the state factory inspector called at his office; that as soon as he knew of the circumstances he at once discharged the girl; and that she was not employed there with his consent or knowledge without a certificate. One Annie Murphy was then called, and testified that she had been employed by this corporation for over 15 years; that this girl had told her that she was 16 years of age, whereupon she employed her without having a certificate.
It thus appeared that the defendant was the superintendent of the factory and responsible for its condition, and that there was employed in the factory a child under 16 years of age, in violation of this provision of the labor law. The court excluded evidence offered by the defendant as to his directions to his subordinates to comply with this law, and the defendant claims that this was error, especially in view of the evidence that the child was employed by the subordinates without the knowledge or consent of the defendant; but the statute provides that no child shall be "employed, permitted or suffered to work" in or in connection with any factory, thus imposing upon those responsible for the management or control of factories a special duty to see to it that no child under 16 years of age without a certificate required by the statute shall be permitted or suffered to work in or about the factory. If the statute had been simply against employing the infant, a different question would be presented. But, where an employer of labor is prohibited from suffering or permitting a person to work in his factory he cannot escape responsibility where a person is suffered and permitted .to work in violation of the statute by proving that he directed his employes not to employ a person to labor in violation of the statute. There is imposed upon him a duty of preventing a person within the prohibited clause from being allowed to work, and, if he fails in the performance of that duty, he violates the statute and is guilty of a misdemeanor.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
CLARKE and HOUGHTON, JJ., concur.