Case Name: In the Matter of Jennie Simon
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-02-13
Citations: 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 48
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Jennie Simon.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 37
Pages: 48–50

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Jennie Simon.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed February 13, 1891.)
1. Habeas corpus—Traverse.
When a traverse is interposed to a return to a writ of habeas corpus the issue is made up and no further pleading is required.
2. Same—Vagrants.
On habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a child upon conviction as a vagrant, it is error for the court to treat the allegations .of the traverse as true and discharge the child without receiving evidence' as to the issues raised thereby, although the traverse is not demurred to.
(Van Brunt, P. J., dissents.)
Appeal from order discharging the respondent from the House of Mercy.
E. T. Gerry, for app’lt; C. Steckler, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Van Brunt, P. J. (dissenting)
Jennie Simon, aged fifteen, was on the 10th day of August, 1890, committed to the reformatory called the Protestant Episcopal House of Mercy to be and remain under the custody of the said institution during her minority unless sooner discharged by the trustees and managers thereof.
The respondent sued out writs of habeas corpus and certiorari, and the institution returned the commitment, and the magistrate made return of the commitment, annexing a copy of the sworn complaint to which the respondent, the mother of the infant, interposed a traverse, alleging that neither the said Jennie Simon nor the petitioner was examined by the police magistrate nor was any evidence offered to show that the house No. 119 Mulberry street in this city is a reputed house of prostitution, or that the said Jennie Simon was an inmate thereof, or that she -was in danger of becoming morally depraved. The commitment showed that she was committed because she " was found in a reputed house of prostitution situate at No. 119 Mulberry street in the city of New York, and is and on the day last aforesaid was in danger of becoming morally depraved, in violation of the law as aforesaid."
And the magistrate in his commitment recites as follows: " I having in due form of law examined said complaint and the witnesses before me produced and also the said female who was duly produced for my personal inspection pursuant to law, and it appearing and having been proven to me to my satisfaction by competent testimony and evidence and by the confession of such female that the said female is and on the day last aforesaid was apparently over the age of twelve and under the age of twenty-one, to wit, of the age of fifteen, and on the day last aforesaid at. the city of New York aforesaid was found," etc.
The magistrate in his return states that the testimony and evidence taken by him was not reduced to writing except in so far as the same is contained in said complaint and the papers of which copies were thereto annexed and made a part of the return, the complaint being the only paper at all pertinent to this inquiry.
It is undoubtedly true that upon these proceedings the question of the propriety of the conviction cannot be investigated. But it was distinctly held in the case of The People ex rel. Van Riper v. N. Y. State Protectory, 106 N. Y., 604; 11 N. Y. State Rep., 155, that if the traverse denies that there was evidence before the justice of the facts adjudicated by him it must be shown.
It is true as already stated that it was decided in the cases cited that there cannot be in these proceedings a re-trial upon the merits of the question whether the child had or had not committed any act or been found in any situation which "subjected to it restraint or imprisonment, and in that case it was held that as the conviction recites that there was proof by1 competent and satisfactory evidence of the charge made and as this recital was not contradicted, the facts alleged in the traverse furnished no ground for the discharge of the child.
But in the case at bar the traverse denies that there was any proof as to the material facts affecting the right of the magistrate to commit this child. And without the. slightest proof that the magistrate had a particle of evidence before him it is claimed that this institution has the right to hold -this child during her minority. And we have confessed upon the face of this return that although the question of the liberty of this infant during the rest of her minority depends upon this conviction, it was not considered of sufficient importance to make a record of the evidence.
But it is urged that the statute under which this commitment is had provides that if it shall be proved to the satisfaction of such magistrate by the confession of such female or by competent testimony that the female is guilty, that he has a right to commit; and that this commitment states that it had been proven to him by competent and satisfactory evidence, and by the confession of the female, that the facts hereinbefore recited exist. What was proven by confession, or what by competent testimony and evidence does not appear. And the traverse expressly states that the female was not examined before the magistrate nor was any evidence taken to establish the facts necessary to authorize the magistrate to act.
We think under the principles enunciated in the case of Van Piper above cited, that it was necessary in order to uphold this conviction to show that evidence had been taken upon these points, although the issue could not be retried.
It is a rather peculiar feature of the law in respect to these cases, that an infant may be deprived of its liberty during minority upon its confession without any corroborating evidence sustaining the charge against it, when a criminal of full age, matured and hardened in crime, cannot be convicted upon the same kind of evidence simply, namely, his own confession.
We think, therefore, that the learned judge in the court below was clearly right in the order made, there being no proof whatever that the magistrate ever had any jurisdiction.
The order should be affirmed, with costs.