State v. Freudenberg, 166 Wis. 35. gard. Probably, in the particular instance, it was to the advantage of the minor to lose the continuation school training and retain her place as an employee, rather than to lose the latter in order to have the benefit of the former, but that does not seem to be a legal excuse for her conduct. The statute is mandatory, requiring girls circumstanced as she was, to attend continuation school or remain out of employment. It does not seem to admit of any exception. It is one of the numerous child-labor laws which the legislature has seen fit to place on the statute books for the purpose of promoting the welfare of minors and preparing them for adult activities. Some of such laws may seem rather extreme regulations. Doubtless a strict enforcement in some instances may be harmful, but courts must take the law as the legislature makes it so long as within constitutional limitations. They cannot make exceptions thereto to fit particular situations. To do that is within legislative authority. The best way to deal with a law which seems unnecessarily restrictive of personal rights, though not so clearly destructive thereof as to reach outside of the boundary of legitimate regulation, is to apply it as legislatively intended and leave the responsibility, as regards changing it, to the lawmaking power. There rests the sole responsibility for restrictive but constitutional en actments. The court did right in not discharging appellant because of the strong palliating circumstance of her conduct. Had it possessed power to make an exception to the law in her case, that would doubtless have been done. It is left for the pardoning power to deal with such situations where the legislature has not made any provision therefor. By the Court. The decision appealed from is affirmed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law. Watke v. State, 166 Wis. 41. WATKE, Plaintiff in error, vs. THE STATE. Defendant in error. May 17-June 12, 1917. Criminal law: Oshkosh municipal court: Separate jurisdiction of judge and court: Preliminary examination by judge: Trial by court: Nonsupport of children: Effect of divorce: Time of offense: Pleading: Evidence. 1. Under ch. 24, Laws 1895, establishing the municipal court of the city of Oshkosh and county of Winnebago, the judge of that court, in the exercise of the jurisdiction (expressly vested in him) of a justice of the peace within the city, may hold the preliminary examination of a person charged with nonsupport of his children and may bind him over for trial before said municipal court; and upon the proper return being made said court may proceed with the trial of the case. 2. A judgment of divorce providing that the divorced husband shall pay a certain sum monthly to his former wife as alimony and for the support of minor children, is not such a modification of his legal obligation to support the children as to free him from the penalties prescribed by sec. 4587c, Stats., for failure to provide such support; nor is any court having jurisdiction to enforce those penalties deprived, by such divorce judgment, of the power to do so. 3. Where the information, under sec. 4587c, Stats., charged that on a certain day "and for some time prior thereto" defendant neglected and refused to provide for the support of his minor children, evidence of such neglect before and after the time charged was admissible. 4. The particular date set forth in the information in such a case is immaterial if the offense was committed at or about that time. ERROR to review a judgment of the municipal court of the city of Oshkosh and county of Winnebago: A. H. Goss, Judge. Affirmed. This is a criminal action commenced in the municipal court of Oshkosh against George E. Watke, the plaintiff in error (hereinafter called the defendant), by his divorced. wife, Neenah Watke, who charges him with unlawfully and feloniously neglecting to provide for the support and mainte nance of his minor children, to wit, Aurum Watke, aged four Watke v. State, 166 Wis. 41. years; George Watke, aged three years; and John Watke, aged two years, all of whom are alleged to be in destitute and necessitous circumstances. Complaint was made by Neenah Watke against the defendant January 23, 1917, a warrant was issued by A. H. Goss, the judge of the municipal court, and the defendant was arrested and extradited from Gary, Indiana, and brought before A. H. Goss on January 29, 1917. He was held for preliminary examination February 2, 1917, at which time he was bound over to be tried before the municipal court on February 13, 1917, and an information was filed against him by the district attorney of Winnebago county charging the defendant with having on the 23d day of May and for some time prior thereto wrongfully and feloniously neglected and refused to provide for his minor children. To this information the defendant filed a plea in abatement alleging that the information does not state facts sufficient to charge the defendant with the crime of abandonment or any other crime under the law; that the court had no lawful authority to hold a preliminary examination in this court and bind the defendant over for trial; that the district attorney of Winnebago county had no lawful authority to file an information against the defendant in the above entitled action. The plea also alleged that on the 10th of May, 1916, a judgment of divorce was granted by the circuit court for Winnebago county, wherein Neenah Watke was plaintiff and George E. Watke defendant, wherein Neenah Watke was divorced from the defendant and the custody of the children awarded to Neenah Watke, with the provision that the defendant pay the sum of $20 a month each month, beginning May 6, 1916, to her as alimony and for the support of the minor children; that the judgment of divorce has never been vacated or modified in any respect and is still in full force and effect, and hence there was no abandonment of children. and no money due and payable to Neenah Watke on May 23, Watke v. State, 166 Wis. 41. 1916; and that the municipal court had no jurisdiction to hear, try, and determine facts stated in the information, for the reason that the question of abandonment and care and support of the children is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit court for Winnebago county. The municipal court overruled the plea in abatement. On February 27, 1917, the case was tried by the court and a jury. The jury found the defendant guilty of the offense charged in the information and he was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment in the state prison. On May 10, 1916, the circuit court for Winnebago county granted to the defendant's wife a divorce and awarded to her the custody of the three small children and ordered George Watke to pay to her $20 a month starting May 6, 1916, as alimony and for the support of his minor children. Watke contested the divorce. Following the decree of divorce he went to Gary, Indiana, where he secured employment at which he earned $110 a month. He was injured after working a little over a month, and was treated at the local hospital at the expense of his employer until arrested and returned to Wisconsin. In addition to having his hospital bills and medical treatment paid, he received compensation for his injuries amounting to about $57 per month for the entire sumWatke at no time after the decree of divorce contributed to the support of his children, and kept his whereabouts a secret from his former wife. He claims that he was not able to contribute towards his children's support, owing to his injuries and expenses at Gary and his obligation to repay some loans made to him before he went to Gary. The children have been supported by their maternal grandparents and have no property or money nor has their mother any means to furnish them with the necessities of life. mer. For the plaintiff in error there was a brief by Wheeler & Taylor of Oshkosh, and oral argument by F. F. Wheeler and Arthur W. Taylor. Watke v. State, 166 Wis. 41. For the defendant in error there was a brief by the Attor ney General and D. K. Allen, district attorney of Winnebago county, and oral argument by J. E. Messerschmidt, assistant attorney general. SIEBECKER, J. The defendant contends that the proceedings, beginning with the issuance of a warrant upon the complaint of Neenah Watke, his former wife, under sec. 4587c, Stats., his arrest, his trial and conviction in the municipal court, were without jurisdiction and contrary to the law upon the several grounds hereinafter stated: (1) It is claimed that the proceeding had before A. H. Goss as the judge of the municipal court for a preliminary examination and binding him over for trial in the municipal court was without jurisdiction. This contention is based on the case of State v. Solomon, 158 Wis. 146, 147 N. W. 640, 148 N. W. 1095, holding that the statutory scheme of preliminary examination upon complaints for criminal offenses contemplates that such examination is to be held by some magistrate other than the court wherein the offender is triable. It is asserted that under this rule the defendant could not legally be subjected to a preliminary examination upon the criminal complaint made against him by the judge of the municipal court and be by him bound over for trial in the municipal court. The municipal court of the city of Oshkosh and county of Winnebago was established by ch. 24, Laws 1895. The act establishes the court as a court of record, having a clerk, and provided for a seal. The act provides (sec. 1): "Said court may exercise powers and jurisdiction equal and concurrent with the circuit court of Winnebago county in all cases of crimes and misdemeanors arising in said county, except murder, and except where the person accused shall demand, in writing, as herein provided, to be tried in said circuit court. . . No justice of the peace or court commissioner within said city, shall exercise any jurisdiction in |