
    THE PEOPLE against DEGNEN.
    
      Supreme Court, First District ; General Term,
    
    
      Jan., 1869.
    Commitment to the House of Refuge.
    It is not necessary that a commitment of a juvenile offender to the House of Refuge in the city of Hew York should specify the period.'of imprisonment, for this is fixed by the statute.
    
      Certiorari.
    
    This proceeding was taken in the name of the People of the State of New York on the relation of the Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents in the City of New York, against Francis Degnen, respondent, by certiorari to review an order made by Mr. Justice Baiibour, of the superior court of the city of New York, discharging the respondent Francis Degnen from the custody of the managers of the House of Refuge on Randall’s Island.
    The order was made on the return to a writ of habeas corpus previously issued by Justice Barbour, and directed to the superintendent of the House of Refuge, to inquire into the cause of the respondent’s detention.
    The return to the writ, the truth of which was admitted on the hearing, set forth that the respondent was detained by virtue of a warrant of commitment, which was a part of the return, and from which it appeared that the respondent, on October 13, 1368, after having been duly convicted of the misdemeanor of petit larceny, by the court of special sessions, had been sent to the House of Refuge.
    The judgment of the court, as set out in the commitment, after reciting the argument and conviction, was as follows: “ Whereupon it is ordered and adjudged by the court, that the said Francis, for the misdemeano'r aforesaid, whereof he is convicted (it appearing to the court that he is under the age of sixteen years) be sent to the House of Refuge, there to -be dealt with according to law.”
    In return to the certiorari, Mr. Justice Barbour certified his opinion that, inasmuch as the revised statutes prescribe as the limit to the punishment of petit larceny an imprisonment of six months, an imprisonment in the House of Refuge, ‘1 there to be dealt with according to law,” as appeared by the commitment, was indefinite in regard to the term of imprisonment, and therefore illegal. For this reason he ordered Degnen to be discharged from imprisonment.
    
      Henry A. Oram, for the Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents, the relators.
    I. The jurisdiction of the House of Refuge extends through the period of minority, and the commitment, therefore, is sufficient, if it appears that the person committed is to be dealt with in the institution according to the charter (Laws of 1824, ch. 126 ; Laws of 1860, ch. 241).
    II. The power claimed for the House of Refuge has been recognized by the following decision of the supreme court in the case of Marks Croffskie, rendered Dec. 10, 1867. Leonard, J. : “ The term affixed by the magistrate is without authority, and void, when the delinquent is sent to the House of Refuge. The term is void, but it is simply surplusage. When a juvenile delinquent is sent to that institution, he is within the jurisdiction of, and subject to be dealt with by the managers, according to their discretion, until he is bound out an apprentice, discharged, or comes of age. I find nothing entitling the "boy to a discharge as a legal right. His friends must apply to the discretion of the managers.”
    In the case of People ex rel. Cornell v. House of Refuge,—which was heard, and decided "by Recorder Hoffman,—the following opinion was delivered:
    “The House of Refuge is a reformatory institution, not prison. When the legislature authorized courts to send young persons convicted of crimes to this place, it was with a view to their care and custody during minority, and not with a view of confining them a certain period "by way of punishment. An order of the court, therefore, sending to the House of Refuge a young person ‘ to "be dealt with according to law’ is right and proper.”
   Clerke, J.

It is a mistake to say that the term indicated in the conviction is indefinite, so that it gives authority to the House of Refuge to confine the prisoner for an unascertainable period ; the words of the conviction itself indeed do not specify the precise period, but it refers with sufficient certainty to the authority given by law to this institution, and that is in express terms to retain in its custody male persons until their majority, and female persons until the age of eighteen years. By this provision the construction of every conviction is governed. Even if there was any ambiguity in the language, it should be construed liberally, for the authority given to this institution is beneficent in its effect on the individual prisoner and on society ; and in relation to the former the exercise of the authority amounts to a commutation of the ordinary punishment. Strictly speaking, confinement in the House of Refuge does not partake of the degradation or physical suffering to which persons are subject usually in prisons. Its discipline is reformatory, with the view of saving persons, during the susceptibility of tender years, from total profligacy, and restoring them to society in a condition no longer dangerous to it. The order of the judge should be reversed.

Barnard, J.

The Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents was incorporated by the legislature in 1824; power was given to the managers of the society “ to receive and take into the House óf Refuge to be established by them” certain classes of delinquent children, and “to place the said children committed to their care during the minority of such children at such useful employments, and to cause them to be instructed in such branches of useful knowledge as shall be suitable to their years and capacities.” An annual report was to be made by the manager to the legislature and to the corporation of the city of Hew York of all the facts and particulars which tended to show the effect, whether advantageous or otherwise, of the association. The legislature also directed that the act should “be construed in all courts and places benignly and favorably for every humane and laudable purpose therein contained.” The institution thus created was a charity, and not a prison. Its object was the reformation of children, and. not their punishment. The children received by them for this purpose were received during their minority for boys, and not beyond eighteen years for girls. In furtherance of this charitable design of reformation, courts by which juvenile offenders were convicted of crime were empowered, instead of sentencing such a person to a State prison or county jail, to order “that he be removed to and confined in the House of Refuge established for the reformation of juvenile delinquents in the city of Hew York.” The sentence of the law upon the criminal is not imposed.

Instead thereof he is committed to the care and custody of this charitabte institution during minority, to be instructed in useful knowledge. Ho court - can increase the term of detention or shorten it.

The act incorporating the society fixes it once for all. The learned judge fell into an error in discharging the defendant. The order should be reversed, and defendant remanded to the care and custody of the relators.

Sutherland, J.

I concur in the conclusion.  