People v. Loomis

• Decision Date: 09 July 1895
• Citation: 64 N.W. 18,106 Mich. 250
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. LOOMIS.

64 N.W. 18

106 Mich. 250

PEOPLE v. LOOMIS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 9, 1895

Error to recorder's court of Detroit; William W. Chapin, Judge.

Joseph W. Loomis was convicted of seduction, and brings error. Reversed.

Frank C. Moriarty (Geo. X. M. Collier, of counsel), for appellant.

Fred A. Maynard, Atty. Gen., Allan H. Frazer Pros. Atty., and Ormond F. Hunt, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

LONG J.

The information in this case charges the respondent with having seduced and debauched one Minnie Webb on or about the 1st day of June, 1893. The evidence on the part of the people tended to show that Minnie Webb was invited by respondent, in June 1893, to go over to Windsor with him and be married; that they went before a man whom she at the time supposed to be a minister, and a ceremony was performed which she supposed at the time was regular and proper. Respondent told her that he did not have enough money to go to housekeeping, and that as she was already living with his mother she had better continue doing so, and say nothing about the marriage, as his mother might object to the marriage, and that in the fall they would go to housekeeping; that Miss Webb stayed at the house of respondent's mother the same after marriage as before; that she was not introduced to any one as his wife but that they cohabited together; that the following November respondent asked her to steal some money from her father, and promised that if she would do so he would go to Chicago and start a saloon and gambling rooms. This Miss Webb refused to do, and respondent then told her she was not his wife. Miss Webb says she thought at first that respondent was in a fit of anger; but afterwards he went on to state how he had taken her over to Windsor, and how he had a friend of his perform this ceremony, and that he had so carefully covered up his tracks that she would never be able to uncover them, and that she would never be able to do anything with him. She then continued: "Then I threatened to have him arrested, and he says, 'Well, if you have me arrested, the judge in the courthouse will say, that is a damn shrewd trick, his taking me over to Windsor and having this ceremony performed.' I would not have had intercourse with him if I had not supposed I was married. I was induced to stay with him, sleep with him, because I supposed I was married to him. I did not know until November. I am twenty-three years old. At the time the ceremony was performed I was not a married woman." Afterwards she went over to Windsor to see if there was any record of the marriage. She testified, on redirect examination, as follows: "I went over to search the records in Windsor to see if we were married. The justice sent me over, and I saw I guess it was a magistrate, and he had the records searched, and he sent around to the different ministers to find out. There was no record of marriage there." On recross-examination she testified: "I don't know whether there was any records kept or not of that marriage. I suppose there could not have been; we could not find any. We mutually agreed to become husband and wife in the presence of this other party, and I was very ignorant of the laws of Canada. The laws of Canada require a marriage record." On redirect examination she was asked by the prosecuting attorney: "Do they have to get a license in Canada? A. Yes." This was objected to, on the ground that the witness was not shown to...