Majority
Headnote
Habeas Corpus.—Hew York Juvenile Asylum.—The respondents were incorporated by the Legislature of the State of New York, by an act entitled “ An act to incorporate the New York Juvenile Asylum,”-passed, June 30, 1851 (Session Laws, 1851, 332, amended by ch. 387, Laws of 1854). By section 2, the objects of this corporation are declared to be, “ to receive and take charge of such children between the ages of 7 and 14 years as may be voluntarily intrusted to them by their parents or guardians, or committed to their charge by competent authority, and to provide for their support; and to afford them the means for moral, intellectual, and industrial education.” By section 7, the respondents are authorized to take under their care and management, 1st. Children who may
By section 11, the magistrate making such order is required immediately to deliver to a policeman of the city a notice addressed to the father of the child (if living and residing in the city), informing him of such commitment to the house of reception, and notifying him “ that, unless taken therefrom in the manner prescribed by law, within ten days after the service of such notice, the child therein named will be sent to the asylum of this corporation,” which is situate at 175th-street. By section 12 it is provided that such notice shall be served personally, “ or by leaving it with some person of sufficient age, at the place of residence or business of such party.” By section
On the petition of the relator, stating that his two children, Ann and Maria Roddy, aged, respectively, 7 and 10 years, were improperly restrained of their liberty by the respondents,
The relator traverses the return, and states that he was sent to the penitentiary for one month-for assault and battery; that during his absence the children were illegally taken before the magistrate, and unlawfully, and without any warrant of law, committed to the respondents; and he denies that he has abandoned or neglected his children, or that he is unable to support and maintain them in a suitable manner. And the relator insists on his right to introduce evidence for the purpose of showing his character- and circumstances, and his pecuniary ability to take care of and maintain his children; also that they were not destitute or deserted, or without a protector
By this return it appears, and it is not controverted, that the children of the relator were fully and finally committed by the magistrate to the respondents in due form, as authorized and prescribed by their act of incorporation, which has devolved upon them the right and the duty to retain such children, and to provide for their proper maintenance and education. The proceedings before the magistrate, which resulted in these commitments, are not before me; and if they were, I could not, in this proceeding, inquire into their legality, regularity, or sufficiency. The commitments are regular in form, and appear to be literally in the language prescribed by the act. I cannot go behind them.
The allegation in the traverse, that the children were taken before the magistrate, and unlawfully and without any warrant of law, committed to the respondents, makes no issue of fact as to which I can take testimony, and the offer of evidence by the counsel for the relator must be overruled.
The act of the Legislature which creates the asylum, also provides a forum, viz., the board of directors, by which any error in the proceedings for the commitment of the children may and shall be corrected, and by which also the propriety of their discharge, by reason of acts or circumstances subsequently occurring, may and shall be determined. (§ 16.)
I do not see that I have any power, under this writ, to determine whether or not these children are properly detained, or to direct their discharge; and an order is therefore made, remanding them to the care and custody of the respondents, and that the writ of habeas corpus be discharged.