The State v. Norman
| Decision Date | 12 February 1901 |
| Citation | 60 S.W. 1036,159 Mo. 531 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. ALICE NORMAN and MARY DAVID, Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Selden P. Spencer Judge.
Affirmed.
Bowcock & Fickeissen for appellant.
Edward C. Crow, Attorney-General, and Sam B. Jeffries, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
(1) Defendants raised the point in the motion for a new trial that the court failed to instruct upon all the law of the case. No such objection was raised at the time the instructions were given the jury. It comes too late when for the first time raised in the motion for new trial. This court has so held. (2) The newly-discovered evidence is not set out in the motion, nor is a proper showing in regard to it made in any essential respect. It can not here be considered. Allegations in the motion for new trial do not prove themselves.
At the February term, 1900, of the circuit court of the city of St Louis, defendants were convicted and their punishment fixed at two years' imprisonment each in the penitentiary, under an indictment charging them with taking away a female under the age of eighteen years for the purpose of prostitution. They appeal.
Since the case has been pending in this court, Alice Norman has dismissed her appeal.
The facts are substantially as follows:
Susie Wilson had been employed for more than two years at the Planters Hotel in the city of St. Louis, first as "dishwasher," and then as a "scrub girl." She was fifteen years old at the time of the offense. The evidence is conflicting as to where she and defendants became acquainted; the prosecuting witness testifying that Mrs. David was a guest at the Planters Hotel for about a week, and that during this time she became acquainted with her; that according to engagement they took a walk one evening and came across defendant Alice Norman at a wine room; that it was agreed that she should go with Mrs. David to her home in "West End," and do light housekeeping for her; that she and Mrs. David went to see Mrs. Wilson, Susie's mother, and that the mother was satisfied with the change from Planters Hotel to light housekeeping for Mrs. David. Mrs. David and Mrs. Norman represented themselves to the prosecutrix as sisters, and Mrs. David took the prosecutrix to Union Station, and told her to remain there till Mrs. Norman came, when they would take the train for their West End home. Mrs. Norman went to the station where she found the girl waiting for her, and secured tickets to Roodhouse, Illinois, a small town about seventy-two miles north of St. Louis. They left St. Louis about dark, and arrived at Roodhouse about eleven o'clock that night. The prosecuting witness said she thought she was going to "West End," and on arriving at Roodhouse did not know where she was until some of the defendant Norman's family told her.
The evidence on the part of the defendants is to the effect that they met the proscutrix at the wine room and arranged for her to go with Mrs. Norman to Roodhouse for the purpose of acting as a common bawd; that they refused to let her go until she had stated that she was over eighteen years of age and had been in the habit of visiting assignation houses for about two years past; that before she could go, the matter must be presented to her mother and her consent obtained; that defendant David went with the prosecutrix to her mother's house where she was fully informed of the intention of prosecutrix; that her mother said Susie was over eighteen years of age and could do as she pleased, as she had to make her own living.
After reaching Roodhouse on the night of November 7, 1900, Susie Wilson went with the defendant Norman to her home, which proved to be an ordinary sporting house....
To continue reading
Request your trial