
    Supreme Court—Special Term, New York.
    September, 1902.
    THE PEOPLE EX REL. SANFILLIPO v. NEW YORK CATHOLIC PROTECTORY.
    (38 Misc. 660.)
    Child Under Sixteen—Sentence Where Guilty of Misdemeanor— Penal Code, Sec. 713.
    A child under sixteen convicted of petit larceny was properly sentenced by the Recorder of New York to the New York Catholic Protectory under the provisions of section 713 of the Penal Code.
    Habeas corpus proceedings.
    A. J. Oishei, for relator.
    Joseph T. Ryan, for respondent.
   Clarke, J.:

Proceedings; on writ of habeas corpus. Relator’s son, a boy uhder sixteen, was. sentenced by the recorder on hisi confession, upon his trial at General Sessions, of the crime of petit larceny, to- be sent to- the Hew York Catholic Protectory, to- be dealt with according to-law.” Section 713 of the Penal Code provides: “ When a person under the age of sixteen is convicted of a crime, he'may, in the discretion of the court, instead of being sentenced to- fine or imprisonment, be placed in charge of any suitable person or institution willing to- receive him, and be .thereafter, until majority or for a shorter term, subjected to such discipline and control,” etc. The same section further provides: “A child under sixteen years of age committed for misdemeanor, under any provision of this code, must be committed to some reformatory, charitable or other institution authorized by law to receive and take charge of minors.” Hence it follows that a child under sixteen convicted of a felony may, in the discretion of the court, instead of being sentenced to a fine, or imprisonment, be placed in charge of a suitable person or institution until majority or for a shorter term, hut in- case of conviction for a misdemeanor, he must be committed to- some reformatory, charitable or other institution authorized by law to- receive and take charge of minors. The protectory is- such an institution. Eelator’s son was duly convicted of a' misdemeanor, to wit, petit larceny. The court had jurisdiction of the person and the crime. The sentence was required by the law. “ The statute to- which reference has heen made provided a mode of treatment of the child by the court and-institution for the good of the public and the protection and benefit of the child. Such legislation has existed for many years, and received the approval of judges and courts. We think the legislation was- adopted in good faith for the purpose of protecting the public as well as for the purpose of saving such children from profligacy and crime, and that it is valid.” People ex rel. Zeese v. Masten, 79 Hun, 583.

Writ dismissed and relatorisi son remanded.

Note.—Section 713 is imperative (People ex rel. Mt. Magdalen School v. Dickson, 57 Hun, 314, 32 St. Rep. 496; affd., 123 N. Y. 639), and although it does not use the words “ juve^ nile delinquents,” yet a child under sixteen committed for a misdemeanor is plainly a juvenile delinquent. As to notice to parents of examination of child, see People ex rel. Cronin v. Carpenter (25 Misc. 341).  