11 S.W. 732 (Mo. 1889), State v. Primm

Citation:11 S.W. 732, 98 Mo. 368
Opinion Judge:Sherwood, J.
Party Name:The State v. Primm, Appellant
Attorney:O. D. Jones and W. C. Hollister for appellant. B. G. Boone, Attorney General, and R. F. Walker for the State.
Judge Panel:Sherwood, J. Barclay, J., dissents.
Case Date:June 10, 1889
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri

Page 732

11 S.W. 732 (Mo. 1889)

98 Mo. 368

The State


Primm, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 10, 1889

Appeal from Knox Circuit Court. -- Hon. B. E. Turner, Judge.


O. D. Jones and W. C. Hollister for appellant.

(1) The motion to quash the indictment should have been sustained. It fails to allege that Maggie Huffman agreed to marry defendant, or that she relied on the mutual promise so made and subsisting at the time she was seduced; nor that any time was ever agreed upon to be married; nor any facts from which the law would imply a reasonable time. State v. Helm, 6 Mo. 263; State v. Rose, 25 Mo. 426; State v. Emerich, 87 Mo. 110. (2) The third instruction for the state was not warranted by the evidence. (3) The evidence does not support the verdict.

B. G. Boone, Attorney General, and R. F. Walker for the State.

(1) An indictment which charges an offense in the language of the statute creating it is sufficient. R. S. 1879, sec. 1259; State v. Anderson, 81 Mo. 78. (2) The instructions given on behalf of the state are authorized by the evidence and are correctly framed.

Sherwood, J. Barclay, J., dissents.


[98 Mo. 369] Sherwood, J.

The defendant was indicted under the provisions of Revised Statutes, 1879, section 1259, for seducing and debauching under promise of marriage an unmarried female of good repute, etc. Tried, he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for three months and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars.

I. Though objections are made to the indictment, it follows the language of the statute, is in the usual form and is not open to the criticism made on behalf of defendant. It was not necessary that it should be alleged that defendant was unmarried, because the statute levels its denunciations and penalties as well against a married man as against a single man; nor was it necessary to allege that the person seduced agreed to [98 Mo. 370] marry defendant, nor that she was of sufficient age to negotiate marriage with him.

II. The testimony in this cause is, to a great extent, couched in the very vernacular of obscenity. It is to be hoped that such a foul record, as this, has never before been filed in an appellate court. At the close of the testimony for the prosecution, the defendant interposed a demurrer to the evidence; but the propriety of the ruling upon it is...

To continue reading