
    MORELAND v. UNITED STATES.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted October 7. 1921.
    Decided November 7, 1921.)
    No. 3662.
    Indictment and information <&wkey;3 — Juvenile court can sentence to hard labor only after indictment.
    A sentence to tbe workhouse at bard labor for six months constituted an infamous punishment and can be imposed, under Const. Amend. 5, only after indictment or presentment by the grand jury, so that such a sentence by the juvenile court without an indictment must be reversed.
    Writ of Error to the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia.
    Charles Walter Moreland was convicted by the juvenile court of willfully neglecting or refusing to provide for the maintenance and support of his minor, children, and he brings error.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Certiorari granted 256 U. S. -, 42 Sup. Ct. 169, 66 L. Ed. -.
    Foster Wood, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
    F. H. Stephens and R. B. Perkins, both of, Washington, D. C., for the United States.
   ROBB, Associate Justice.

This is a writ of error to the juvenile court of the District of Columbia and brings up for review a judgment in that court under which the plaintiff in error, without indictment or presentment by a grand jury, was sentenced to the workhouse at hard labor for six months, for willfully neglecting or refusing to provide for the support and maintenance of his minor children. See 34 Stat. 86. The single question necessary to be considered by us is whether the juvenile court has jurisdiction to impose a sentence involving hard labor where there has been no indictment or presentment by a grand jury, as provided by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

In Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 16 Sup. Ct. 977, 41 L. Ed. 140, Wing had been sentenced to the house of correction at hard labor for a period of 60 days, and the court expressly held that imprisonment at hard labor constituted an infamous punishment and that such' imprisonment could be imposed only where there had been a compliance with the Constitution. We see no escape from the conclusion that the decision in that case is controlling in this, and we therefore reverse the judgment and remand the case, with directions to dismiss the complaint.

Reversed and remanded.  