It is not necessary that the persuasion, enticement or inducement be made or offered at the time of her leaving, but it is sufficient if she goes as the result of previous persuasion or inducement.22 The defendant need not have gone in person with her, nor need he be present when she leaves, 23 nor is it material what agencies or means were provided to take her away.24 Neither the distance to which the girl is taken 25 nor the length of time for which she is kept away 26 is material. § 348. Taking from custody of particular person. Where the statute merely punishes the taking of a female for a particular purpose, it is not necessary that she be taken from her parents or other person having the custody of her person.27 But under a statute punishing the taking or enticing away of a girl from her father, mother, guardian, or other person having the legal charge of her person, she must have been taken from the charge or custody of one of the persons so designated.28 It is not necessary, however, that she be taken 22 State v. Bussey, 58 Kan. 679, 50 Pac. 891; State v. Corrigan, 262 Mo. 195, 171 S. W. 51; Carpenter v. People, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 603. If, at any time, he has attempted to induce her to leave home, without her parents' consent, and she afterwards does so, he is guilty of abducting her, even though he disapproves of the act at the particular time at which she gives effect to his previous persuasions. Reg. v. Olifier, 10 Cox C. C. 402. 23 State v. Bussey, 58 Kan. 679, 50 Pac. 891; State v. Corrigan, 262 Mo. 195, 171 S. W. 51; Reg. v. Olifier, 10 Cox C. C. 402. 24 It is immaterial whether the defendant took her by the hand and led her away, sent a special conveyance to take her away, or planned and provided that she should go in a public conveyance. State v. Bussey, 58 Kan. 679, 50 Pac. 891. 25 Slocum v. People, 90 Ill. 274; South v. State, 97 Tenn. 496, 37 S. W. 210; Reg. v. Baillie, 8 Cox C. C. 238. 26 South v. State, 97 Tenn. 496, 37 S. W. 210; Reg. v. Timmins, Bell C. C. 276, 8 Cox C. C. 401. See State v. Overstreet, 43 Kan. 299, 23 Pac. 572. The offense of enticing or taking a female from her parents' house for the purpose of concubinage or prostitution may be committed where she is induced to go to some place in the neighborhood although she is only gone for an hour or two at a time and continues to reside at home. Slocum v. People, 90 Ill. 274. A conviction was sustained where defendant took a girl away and married her and she then returned to her father's house and continued to live there, and was only gone an hour or two. Reg. v. Baillie, 8 Cox C. C. 238. 27 State v. Keith, 47 Minn. 559, 50 N. W. 691; People v. Seeley, 37 Hun (N. Y.) 190. 28 Jones v. State, 16 Lea (84 Tenn.) 466. The parents of a minor child are presumed to have the legal charge of her person, and it is not necessary to from the immediate possession, house, or home of such person.29 A girl remains in the care and custody of her father, for example, although she is temporarily away from home,30 or though he has placed her in the care of some other person for a proper purpose,31 and a person who takes her under such circumstances takes her from his custody and care. If the parents are residing together and the female is with them. at the time of the taking, the strict legal charge is in the father.32 But if he is absent and assuming no control over the child,38 or if she is in the actual custody of the mother,34 then a taking from the charge of the mother will support a conviction. allege that such was the case where it is alleged that she was taken from their custody and possession. This presumption is not rebutted by the presumption of innocence. State v. Sager, 99 Minn. 54, 108 N. W. 812. Where a girl has abandoned her home and become a street-walker, and is not with her mother or under her immediate care or custody, a person who induces her to enter a house of prostitution cannot be convicted of taking her away from her mother for the purpose of prostitution. People v. Flores, 160 Cal. 766, 118 Pac. 246, Ann. Cas. 1913 A 582. In Reg. v. Meadows, 1 Car. & K. 399, Dears. C. C. 161n, it was held that where a girl in service, while out on an errand, was asked by another girl if she would go with her to London, where she represented that her mother would employ her as a servant, and the two went away together, there was not a sufficient taking. 29 People v. Lewis, 141 Cal. 543, 75 Pac. 189; State v. Baldwin, 214 Mo. 290, 113 S. W. 1123; State v. Round, 82 Mo. 679. 30 While she is on the street, if she intends to return to her home. Reg. v. Mycock, 12 Cox C. C. 28. Or while she is visiting relatives in another state. State v. Round, 82 Mo. 679. Where a girl voluntarily goes with a man into another state, and he there by persuasion or force overcomes her intention to return to her home, he there takes her from her parent or guardian. State v. Gordon, 46 N. J. L. 432. 31 Where a father allows a person to take his daughter for the purpose of securing employment, and such person, after taking her to another county, conceives the intention of placing her in a house of prostitution, and does so, he takes her from her father for that purpose. People v. Lewis, 141 Cal. 543, 75 Pac. 189. 32 State v. Davidson, 134 Tenn. 482, 184 S. W. 18. The father has by nature and by the law, the legal charge of the persons of his children until they arrive at the age of majority. People v. Cook, 61 Cal. 478. 38 State v. Davidson, 134 Tenn. 482, 184 S. W. 18. 34"One who takes a minor female from the actual custody of her mother for the purpose of prostitution should not be heard to say that as between the mother and the father, the latter may have had the better right to the custody of the child, and may have given his consent." People v. Fowler, 88 Cal. 136, 25 Pac. 1110. A woman who has reached the age of twenty-one years is no longer in the legal charge of her father or mother although she may be residing with them at the time of the taking.35 But it has been held. that a woman over that age who is under legal guardianship because of mental infirmity, or the like, would be within the protection of the statute.36 A statute punishing the taking or enticing away of a girl from her father, mother, guardian, "or other person having the legal charge of her person," without such person's consent, covers a taking from a person standing in loco parentis,87 even though he does not have all the power and authority possessed by a parent or legally appointed guardian of a child.38 So a person to whom the parents of a girl have entrusted her care, charge, custody or control, and with whom she lives as a member of the family, has the legal charge of her person within such a provision.39 And the same is true of persons with whom a child, whose parents are dead and for whom no guardian has been appointed, resides as a member of the family, and who have her wholly under their care and protection.40 But a person having the temporary charge of a girl, or charge of her for a particular purpose, does not come within such a provision.41 Nor does a husband have legal charge of his wife within the meaning of such a statute.42 It has been held that it is immaterial whether the abductor knew that the girl was in the lawful care or custody of any person.* 48 But there is also authority to the contrary.* 35 State v. Davidson, 134 Tenn. 482, 184 S. W. 18. 36 State v. Davidson, 134 Tenn. 482, 184 S. W. 18. 37 State v. Davidson, 134 Tenn. 482, 184 S. W. 18. 38 State v. Ruhl, 8 Iowa 447; People v. Carrier, 46 Mich. 442, 9 N. W. 487. 39 State v. Ruhl, 8 Iowa 447. A person to whom the mother of a child has temporarily given her custody, with power to resume such custody at will. People v. Carrier, 46 Mich. 442, 9 N. W. 487. 40 State v. Ruhl, 8 Iowa 447. An orphan adopted into a family without legal guardianship, or a girl abandoned by her parents and given a home by charitable persons, is within the protection of the statute. People v. Carrier, 46 Mich. 442, 9 N. W. 487. 41 As a school-mistress or governess, or a relative at whose house she is temporarily. State v. Ruhl, 8 Iowa 447. 42 State v. Davidson, 134 Tenn. 482. 184 S. W. 18. 43 It is immaterial whether he knew that she had a father living. People v. Cook, 61 Cal. 478. 44 Thus, where a man met a girl under sixteen in the street, and got her to stay with him for several hours, during which time he seduced her, and then took her back to the place where he found her, and she returned home, § 349. Place to which taken. It has been held that the word "elsewhere" in a statute punishing the enticing or taking of a female to a house of ill fame or of prostitution or assignation, "or elsewhere" for purposes of prostitution or sexual intercourse, means a place of similar character to those enumerated, that is a place used to some extent for purposes of prostitution or assignation.45. But other courts have held that it is not confined to places of like character with those enumerated, but includes any place convenient for the purpose intended.46 § 350. Detention. Detention is an essential element of the offense under statutes punishing the detention of a woman against her will with intent to have carnal knowledge of her.47 The exercise of some force is essential to constitute a detention. Mere persuasion, or an expression of desire to gratify the animal passion is not enough.48 But any force, however slight, is sufficient.40 § 351. Consent. Under statutes punishing the taking of a female, or a female under a designated age, from the person having the legal charge of her, it is generally immaterial whether the girl is taken with her consent or at her own suggestion, or against her will.50 But but he was not aware at the time that she had a father or mother living, it was held that he was not guilty of abduction. Reg. v. Hibbert, L. R. 1 C. C. 184, 11 Cox C. C. 246. See also Reg. v. Green, 3 Fost. & F. 274. 45 Nichols v. State, 127 Ind. 406, 26 N. E. 839; Miller v. State, 121 Ind. 294, 23 N. E. 94; State v. McCrum, 38 Minn. 154, 36 N. W. 102. 46 Com. v. Bowser, 61 Pa. Super. Ct. 107. The test of guilt is not necessarily the character of the place to which the woman is taken, and it need not be a resort of ill fame. People v. Warden of City Prison, 207 N. Y. 354, 101 N. E. 167, aff'g 152 App. Div. 912, 137 N. Y. Supp. 1137, aff'g 137 N. Y. Supp. 268. And see Carpenter v. People, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 603. A statute punishing a taking for unlawful sexual intercourse at a house of ill fame, or at any other place of like character, or elsewhere, covers a taking to the public highway for such purpose. State v. Sanders, 136 La. 1059, 68 So. 125, Ann. Cas. 1916 E. 105. See also State v. Savant, 115 La. 226, 38 So. 974. 47 Cargill v. Com., 12 Ky. L. Rep. 149, 13 S. W. 916. 48 Stark v. Com., 169 Ky. 539, 184 S. W. 875; Cargill v. Com., 12 Ky. L. Rep. 149, 13 S. W. 916. 49 Stark v. Com., 169 Ky. 539, 184 S. W. 875. 50 California. People v. Dolan, 96 Cal. 315, 31 Pac. 107; People v. Demousset, 71 Cal. 611, 12 Pac. 788; People v. Cook, 61 Cal. 478. Iowa. State v. Ruhl, 8 Iowa 447. Kansas. State v. Bussey, 58 Kan. 679, 50 Pac. 891. Michigan. People v. Bristol, 23 Mich. 118. consent is a defense to a prosecution under a statute punishing the detention of a female against her will with intent to have carnal knowledge of her,51 or the taking of a female against her will and compelling her to marry, or to be defiled,52 or with intent to compel her to marry or be defiled.58 It is not necessary that actual physical violence be used to constitute a taking of the prosecutrix against her will within the meaning of such a provision, but it is sufficient if she is induced to go by deceit or false representations as to the purpose of the defendant.54 Where the statute punishes a taking against the will or without the consent of the father or other person having the charge or care of the girl, the taking must be without his consent.55 But under North Carolina. State v. Chisenhall, 106 N. C. 676, 11 S. E. 518. Tennessee. Griffin v. State, 109 Tenn. 17, 70 S. W. 61; South v. State, 97 Tenn. 496, 37 S. W. 210; Scruggs v. State, 90 Tenn. 81, 15 S. W. 1074; Tucker v. State, 8 Lea (Tenn.) 633. Texas. Castillo v. State, 29 Tex. App. 127, 14 S. W. 1011. England. Reg. v. Robins, 1 Car. & K. 456; Reg. v. Booth, 12 Cox C. C. 231; Reg. v. Mycock, 12 Cox C. C. 28; Reg. v. Kipps, 4 Cox C. C. 167; Reg. v. Biswell, 2 Cox C. C. 279. This is true although it is charged that she was taken for the purpose of marriage, and though she was old enough to contract a valid marriage. State v. Sager, 99 Minn. 54, 108 N. W. 812. 51 Thomas v. Com., 188 Ky. 509, 222 S. W. 951; Gravitt v. Com., 184 Ky. 429, 212 S. W. 430; Stark v. Com., 169 Ky. 539, 184 S. W. 875; Cargill v. Com., 93 Ky. 578, 20 S. W. 782; Wilder v. Com., 81 Ky. 591, 5 Ky. L. Rep. 635; Hoskins v. Com., 13 Ky. Opinions 505. Consent is a defense although the female is under the age of consent. Com. v. Pennington, 189 Ky. 182, 224 S. W. 644. 52 State v. Hromadko, 123 Iowa 665, 99 N. W. 560; Lampton v. State (Miss.) 11 So. 656; Beyer v. People, 86 N. Y. 369. See also § 359. 58 State v. Maloney, 105 Mo. 10, 16 S. W. 519. 54 As where defendant induced the prosecutrix to go to a house of ill fame by representing to her that he had secured her a situation with a respectable family, she not knowing the character of the place. Schnicker v. People, 88 N. Y. 192; Beyer v. People, 86 N. Y. 369. 55 California. People v. Lewis, 141 Cal. 543, 75 Pac. 189; People v. Demousset, 71 Cal. 611, 12 Pac. 788. Iowa. State v. Ruhl, 8 Iowa 447. Maryland. Brown v. State, 72 Md. 468, 20 Atl. 186. New York. People v. Cerami, 101 N. Y. App. Div. 366, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1027. |