Case Name: THE PEOPLE v. HARRY SAMWICK
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-06-05
Citations: 22 N.Y. Crim. 432
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE v. HARRY SAMWICK.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Criminal Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 432–433

Head Matter:
SUPREME COURT-APP. DIVISION—SECOND DEP.,
June 5, 1908.
THE PEOPLE v. HARRY SAMWICK.
(127 App. Div. 209.)
(1.) Penal Code Sec. 290—Admission of Minors to Place of Entertainment—Proof Necessary that Place was Injurious.
The owner of an establishment where moving pictures are exhibited cannot be convicted of a violation of section 290 of the Penal Code in admitting minors under sixteen years of "age, in the absence of proof that tile place was injurious to the health aud morals of the minors.
(2.) Same—Meaning of “Guardian.”
Moreover, in a prosecution under said section it must he shown that the minors were unaccompanied by “ parent or guardian,” and by the latter is meant not a guardian appointed by the court, hut a proper custodian.
Appeal by the defendant, Harry Samwick, from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the Second Division of the city of Hew York, rendered on the 27tli day of May, 1907, convicting the defendant of a violation of section 290 of the Penal Code.
John F. Ilarringioiij for the appellant.
Peter P. Smith [ John F. Clarke with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Gays on, J.:
The defendant was convicted under an information of the District Attorney charging him with violating section 290 of the Penal Code, by admitting two minor boys, one of the age of 14 years and the other of the age of 7, to " a place of entertainment " kept by him, and " injurious to the health and morals of minor children," and allowing them to remain there. Although there was no evidence that the place was injurious to health or morals, but on the contrary it was shown to be innocent, the defendant was convicted, apparently under the notion that police courts may be better than the law, and a law unto themselves. There was no other charge against the defendant. Hie part of the said section of the Penal Code applicable is as follows: "A person who admits to, or allows to remain in any dance house, concert saloon, theatre, museum, skating rink, or in any place where wines or spirituous or malt liquors are sold or given away, or in any place of entertainment injurious to health or morals, owned, kept or managed by him in whole or in part, any child actually or apparently under the age of sixteen years, unless accompanied by its parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor." ¡Nothing but moving pictures were shown in the defendant's place. It •was not any of the places mentioned by the said statute, unless it comes under the head of a museum, which would seem doubtful, to say the least, if the definition of that word be adhered to to any extent. But it is enough that the defendant was not convicted on any such charge. ¡Nor does the evidence show that the children were unaccompanied by " parent or guardian," to use the phrase of the statute. The word guardian does not there mean a guardian appointed by a court. If children be sent or taken to the theatre by a person other than one of their parents or their legal guardian—by their elder brother or sister, or by a neighbor or friend, for instance—he or she is their guardian for the time being within the meaning of the said statute, if not excluded in some way or for some reason by law. Courts and police officials should not strain criminal statutes, or try to bo better in the administration of the law than the law itself is.
The judgment should be reversed.
Woodward, Hooker, High and Miller, JJ., concurred.
Judgment of the Court of Special Sessions reversed and defendant discharged.