
    SUPREME COURT—APP. DIV.—SECOND DEPT.,
    December 30, 1912.
    THE PEOPLE v. JAMES BUTLER, INC.
    (154 App. Div. 311.)
    Labor Law—Employment of boy under fourteen years of age—Conviction OF THIRD OFFENSE.
    A defendant who has employed a hoy under fourteen years of age in violation of section 162 of the Labor Law may be convicted of a third offense if it be shown that he has been twice previously convicted of some violation of “ The provisions of article eleven of the Labor Law, relating to mercantile establishments, and the employment of women and children therein.”
    It is not necessary to show that the defendant has been twice previously convicted of the same offense.
    Appeal by the defendant, James Butler, Incorporated, from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the city of Uew York, rendered against the defendant on the 22d day of January, 1912, convicting him of a violation of the Labor Law and imposing a fine of $500, which was paid under protest.
    
      Philip M. Goodhart (John R. Bogan with him on the brief), for the appellant.
    
      Rersey Egginton, assistant district attorney (James G. Gropsey, district attorney, and Rarry G. Anderson, assistant district -attorney, with him on the brief), for the respondent.
   Woodward, J.:

The information on which the prosecution was based, after setting forth two previous convictions of the defendant, a domestic corporation, for violations of the Labor Law, charges in substance that on the 22d of July, 1911, in the borough of Brooklyn, the defendant did willfully and knowingly employ, permit and suffer a certain minor t bild, under the age of fourteen years, to wit, one Joseph Kennedy, to work in and in connection with the defendant’s mercantile establishment as a delivery boy.

There is no dispute in the .evidence; the defendant was. shown to have employed the boy, Joseph Kennedy, under fourteen years of age, on successive Fridays and Saturdays as a delivery boy, paying him seventy-five cents for the Fridays and one dollar for the Saturdays, such employment being within the city of Kew York, borough of Brooklyn, and this is unquestionably contrary to the provisions of section 162 of the Labor Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 31 (Laws of 1909, chap. 36), as amd. by Laws of 1909, chap. 293; since amd. by Laws of 1911, chap. 866). It is urged, however, that the crime of á third offense was not established. This contention seems to-be based upon the theory that while the information charged that the defendant had been convicted of the “ crime and misdemeanor of unlawfully employing a child under the age of lb. „on years, as a second offense,” the evidence merely went to the extent of showing that the defendant had been convicted of two prior offenses. We are of opinion that the statute does not require such proof; that it is sufficient to show that the defendant has been twice previously convicted of some violation of the provisions of article eleven of the Labor Law, relating to mercantile establishments, and the employment of women and children therein.” There are several things which are required in the performance of duties and obligations under this subdivision, and a violation of any of these or a failure to comply with the conditions prescribed is declared to be a misdemeanor, and upon conviction the defendant is to be punished for a first offense by a fine of not less than twenty nor more than fifty dollars; for a second offense hy a fine of not lesa than fifty nor more than two hundred and fifty dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days or by both such fine and imprisonment; for a third offense by a fine of not less than two hundred and fifty dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than sixty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” (Penal Law, § 1275, as since amd. by Laws of 1911, chap. 749.) The amendment of 1911, which took effect after the crime was committed, is shown by the italicized words. The things required and the things forbidden are set forth in sections 161 and 162 of the Labor Law (as respectively amd. by Laws of 1910, chap. 387, and Laws of 1909, chap. 293; since amd. by Laws of 1911, chap. 866), and the violation of any one of these, or the failure to comply therewith, is made a misdemeanor, and the punishment of such misdemeanor depends upon whether the defendant has been previously convicted of offenses under the provisions of the Labor Law above cited. It does not require that he shall have been convicted of the same offense, but upon the violation or failure to comply with any of the provisions- he is guilty of a misdemeanor, and the punishment is meted out on the basis of the number of violations of the act of which the defendant has been convicted. It does not pretend to change the grade of the crime; it is declared to be a misdemeanor, but the punishment is made to depend upon whether the defendant has merely transgressed in a single instance, or in more.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

J suns, P. J., Thomas, Cabe and Rich, TJ., concurred.

Judgment of conviction of the Oourt of Special Sessions affirmed.  