Case Name: THE PEOPLE ex rel MARGARET WEBBER v. MOTHER SUPERIOR
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-01
Citations: 23 N.Y. Crim. 184
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE ex rel MARGARET WEBBER v. MOTHER SUPERIOR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Criminal Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TERM—KINGS CO.,
Jan., 1909.
THE PEOPLE ex rel MARGARET WEBBER v. MOTHER SUPERIOR.
(62 Misc. 24.)
Becord of Minutes and Commitment—Commitments or Certificate of Conviction.
A commitment under chapter 439 of the Laws of 1892 in the alternative, during minority or until discharged, is valid.
And where the commitment is upon a printed blank designed for a commitment for the term of six months and those words have been stricken out in one place and the words “ during her minority ” written in their place, the fact that in the other place the words were not changed will not invalidate the commitment, which will be construed as a commitment during minority.
Habeas corpus proceeding.-
Mitchell May, for relator.
Peter P. Smith (John F. Clarke, District Attorney, with him on brief), for respondent.

Opinion:
Blackmar, J.:
The defendant justifies the detention of the relator under a commitment issued by a city magistrate, to the sufficiency of which the relator demurs.
The relator was committed under chapter 439 of the Laws of 1892. The commitment recites the jurisdictional facts, and then in terms adjudges, that the relator be committed to the defendant, there to remain for the period of six months or until discharged according to law. It then proceeds to direct that the relator be taken to the House of Good Shepherd, which is required to hold her during the term of her minority, or until discharged according to law.
The act of 1892 is not repealed by the provisions of the charter, the magistrate had jurisdiction, but, as the relator is a minor, he could commit her only during her minority or until discharged. I think the law means until sooner discharged. So that a commitment in the alternative during minority or until discharged, is not objectionable. The commitment seems contradictory on its face. There is a provision requiring the detention to last for a term of six months and another that it last during minority.
But the meaning is plain. The relator was a minor, and the magistrate had no authority except to commit during minority. The commitment is on a printed blank. Twice the words "for the term of six months" are used in the printed blank. They are stricken out once and the words "during her minority" written over them. The evident meaning of the commitment is that it shall last during minority. As that time has not expired the relator is legally held pursuant to a valid commitment.
The writ is dismissed and the relator remanded.
Writ dismissed.