112 Neb. 112 | Neb. | 1924
In the juvenile division of the district court for Douglas county, Harry A. Taylor, the proprietor of two motion picture and vaudeville theatres in Omaha, was accused of violating the statute which declares:
“No child under fourteen years of age shall be employed, permitted or suffered to work in, or in connection with any theatre, concert hall, or place of amusement, or in any mercantile institution, store, office, hotel, laundry, manufacturing establishment, bowling alley, passenger or freight elevator, factory or work shop, or as a messenger or driver therefor within this state.” Comp. St. 1922, sec. 7669.
Defendant pleaded not guilty and upon a trial in the juvenile court he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $5 under another statutory provision authorizing the imposition of a penalty for a violation of the law. To reverse the judgment of the district court, defendant has prosecuted a proceeding in error, bringing up the evidence relied upon by the state to sustain the conviction.
Did defendant violate the statute? The answer depends on what he did, as shown by the evidence, and on the meaning of the language used by the legislature. Defendant
Is the permitting of such performances by the proprietor of the theatres, under the circumstances disclosed by the proofs, a violation of law? It is the unanimous opinion of the court that the legislature did not use language forbidding what defendant did when he permitted the girls to appear on the stage under the circumstances shown in this prosecution. “Be employed” and “to work,” as those terms are used in the statute, when the entire act and the purposes of the legislation are considered, imply a contract of employment for compensation and work for hire pursuant to such a contract. This is the sense in which such legislation is generally understood. The girls in performing their little tasks in public were not under the control of defendant as master or employer. They were directed by their own teacher in studying and exhibiting their art, or by some other proper person, and were thus protected from the evil influences against which the statute is directed. In this sense, there is no evidence that defendant
Reversed and dismissed. .
Note — See Infants, 31 C. J. p. 995, sec. 16.