Case Name: PEOPLE ex rel. DEUTERMANN v. DOYLE, Sheriff
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-11-27
Citations: 150 N.Y.S. 341
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. DEUTERMANN v. DOYLE, Sheriff.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 150
Pages: 341–345

Head Matter:
(164 App. Div. 795)
PEOPLE ex rel. DEUTERMANN v. DOYLE, Sheriff.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
November 27, 1914.)
Master and Servant (§ 13 )—Police Power—Public Health—Hours of Work.
Labor Law (Consol. La ws, c. 31) art. 6, § 8a, as- added by Laws 1913, c. 740, violation of which is a misdemeanor, under Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40) § 1275, providing that every employer of labor engaged in carrying on any factory or mercantile establishment shall allow every person at least 24 consecutive hours in every seven consecutive days, and that no employer shall operate factory or establishment on Sunday, unless he posts a list of those required or allowed to work Sunday and designates the day of rest for each, even as applied to those enjoying an 8-hour day, has a real and substantial relation to the general welfare, and is a valid exercise of the police power.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 14; Dee. Dig. § 13.*]
Burr and Rich, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Westchester County.
Habeas corpus by the People, etc., on the relation of Charles Deutermann, against William J. Doyle, as Sheriff of the County of Westchester, in the State of New York. From order -dismissing the writ, relator appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before JENKS, P. J., and BURR, CARR, RICH, and PUTNAM, JJ.
Joseph Rowan, of New York City, for appellant.
William J. Fallon, of White Plains, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PUTNAM, J.
Accepting the statement of facts contained in the opinion of Mr. Justice BURR, the test of the constitutionality of such statutes, which are aimed to preserve public health, is that it must have "some relation to the general welfare." Regulations of the Sunday working hours of barbers are constitutional. People v. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 43 N. E. 541, 31 L. R. A. 689, 52 Am. St. Rep. 707; Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U. S. 164, 20 Sup. Ct. 666, 44 L. Ed. 716. Where many persons work together, as in "a factory or mercantile establishment," the statute may require cessation of work during one , day in seven. Judge Vann recognizes that the employed may not have the power to observe this day of rest without legislation, as the intensity of business "rivalry and competition would ultimately prevent, not only the wage earners, but likewise the capitalists and employers themselves, from yielding to the warnings of nature and obeying the instinct of self-preservation by resting periodically from labor." Peo pie v. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 204, 43 N. E. 541, 544 (31 L. R. A. 689, 52 Am. St. Rep. 707).
As this act is only for factories and mercantile establishments where the tendency is to long, steady hours of daily labor, I cannot say that it is an unjustifiable encroachment on individual rights. Even mills running on half time I think should keep this seventh day of rest. The generality of the provision is essential to its practical enforcement with our large industrial plants. If the statute gives this rest only to those who have worked a minimum period—say 48 hours a week—even that limit would become a loophole for its evasion. Can we say that a seventh day of rest is only for the overworked? I think those enjoying an 8-hour day may also demand it for their protection. In four places this act refers to Sunday. It may be called a modified Sunday law protecting against work on that day, or, if work has to go on then, providing a substituted day of rest so as to save the laborer from consecutive toil beyond six days.
Hence it seems to me that we, as a court, can see in this measure a real and substantial relation to the general welfare.
The order should therefore be affirmed.
JENKS, P. J., and CARR, J., concur. BURR, J., reads for reversal, with whom RICH, J. concurs.