Show V VARYING VIEWS OF JUVENILE COURT COUR r Jurisdiction Claimed and arid Denied Denied De De- nied riled in 11 Different f t Cases r r- r QUESTION OF LANGUAGE 1 Windier I I Si u s Son SOIl I o to I Court Cour Men Try fr fi v in to t Ic Eu E ade i HIO HIOu u Sentence Arguments ld In the the corpus proceedings brought on Oil ot behalf of oC John Juhn Al U Miller all and were heard by LJ Judge Jud c lost last oven Ing 1 was convicted ii in the uie criminal crim inal thai division of the city court Jan January ar i 1 lo on two charges of ot embezzlement and was sentenced to sixty mity 81 fY days lays In time the lh j 0 county Jail Jan on each cach charge chale till the senj sentences sen sen- to lo run consecutively eh while Miller Mil IU r tel ler and Hau wen veip sentenced Mm-ch Mm 3 by hy Judge Willis Brown of the juvenile court of contributing on charges chanes ing to Lu the delinquency of a tL 1 old year girl Sin Tho Thu proceedings were 1110 brought II h t on behalf of by his mother who claimed that his age at the time I 4 line lime of sentence should have ive brought his hla ca case cae e to lo the Juvenile court Attorney f X X T. T r Porter v represented r p. p h l while Assistant C County At- At l V I I In 11 I lIan Hanson I on appeared t i i for fot forthe the time sheriff Mr Mi I I Porter attacked th the jurisdiction of the criminal court and and slated that hut the case caso should have come before beron the Juvenile ju court Mrs K Kuoy- Kuoy lIv- lIv t luau JUlin was vas sworn HI and tu that the lit i- i t boy wa was J I IS S r years old last August In II reply Mr 11 II Hanson mon said 11 hail had h HI gone tutu Into court and had pleaded cd I that lint he ho was sentenced on his 1 that t flint hit t ho J 10 o 11 m d I IS S r transfer Ts a lo I court and amI that consequently I F t l o w l entirety entirely the Jurisdiction jr f fI city etty lt coult coull The rho CaK Id upon limo Ow decision o of time the meaning ot the sentenCe j nt-c nt 18 18 years or 01 under as a applies to 10 those coming within the lie Iut lur- lur of tin thc criminal court t Judge Lewis took the matter under 1 o l I s MUter Millor 1111 and l Ba attacked the W validity of th time the juvenile ju jurls- jurls diction especially cl In Iii regard rc ald to lo time the which reads iI S t toil d for six Ix and that any an part I. I f f of f such sentence may be he suspended u to bo be determined deter deter- under un I certain conditions Je 1 S mined at a further hearing Attorney Samuel Newton ont ont- lug Ing the tho petitioners claimed that thai the ua an Indefinite one that Il It l u nil He lie meant no lit s sentence at al r rS 5 S ed ml the Hie Jurisdiction of If lh the Juvenile court claiming It had hall no Ito authority un- un iI dor iler the law to sentence an any but a par par- NIL cut guardian or t. t legal custodian or 01 fI other uther person guilty of or contributing lothe to lo the he delinquency of u a minor He lIe 11 main maln- maink tallied that the words word or 11 r other peron per per- ta k on applied to tit those specifically s set l forth rOIth that thal i is IK the parent guardian 01 or S. S legal custodian Henn l' l X Smith who r represented tho timo in 1 resisting the petition look took exception to lo this view of ut the ease case maintaining that the thc words embraced em cut- braced any person on lerl who Vh was vas guilty guilt of He lie held I contributing to 11 delinquency that children n coming coining under the thc case cast castor of or tile the Juvenile Ju court com became words of tho ho state stute and amI as such stich were entitled to lo toUs Its Us protection and that If the law la would not nol h those who era Miller 1 and amI I guilty of delinquency as Baughmann hud had been 1000 enticing a girt girl should be bl made lo to her ruin the law broad enough lIou h to tu cover such cases Judge Lewis 1 took look this case caso under 1 al also aIto o. o |