Egan v. Murray

Decision Date20 May 1890
PartiesEGAN v. MURRAY.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from district court, Lyon county; G. W. WAKEFIELD, Judge.

The plaintiff averred in her petition that on or about June 3, 1888, the defendant, by means of flattery, false promises, deceits, and devices, seduced and debauched her, she being an unmarried woman of previously chaste character. The answer of the defendant was a general denial. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $1,500, and defendant appeals.J. M. Parsons and E. Y. Greenleaf, for appellant.

A. Van Wagenen and E. C. Roach, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, C. J.

1. The plaintiff testified, as a witness in her own behalf, that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her about June 1, 1888, and that as the result of said intercourse she was delivered of a child in the month of December of the same year. In the course of her examination in chief, and cross-examination, she stated, in a general way, that the act of intercourse occurred when the parties were out riding in a buggy. She states that the defendant used physical force to accomplish his purpose, and that she resisted him all she could, but that towards the last she did not resist. After examining other witnesses, the plaintiff was recalled, and her counsel asked her this question: “Did his actions towards you, and his treatment of you, have anything to do with your giving in?” The answer was, “Yes, sir.” Thereupon the counsel for defendant moved to have the answer stricken out as leading and incompetent. The motion was overruled, and the defendant assigns the ruling as error. The evidence surely was not incompetent. It tended directly to explain the extent of plaintiff's resistance, and whether the act charged was accomplished by force and against the will of the plaintiff, or whether it was effected by means of the undue influence of the defendant. No objection was made to the question as leading. The objection to the answer was not sufficient to raise the objection now contended for.

2. Counsel for plaintiff produced a letter dated February 1, 1889, adressed to “Mary,” and signed “Jim,” and offered it in evidence. A witness was called to prove the hand writing in the letter, and gave testimony as follows: “Are you acquainted with the handwriting of J. J. Murray, and his signature? Answer. Yes; I have seen it. Q. I want you to state whether, in your opinion, this letter is in his handwriting, and whether the initials signed below were written by him. A. I should say that is his signature.” Defendant's counsel claim that it was not shown that the witness was competent to testify to the handwriting of the defendant. The answer to the first question shows that the witness was acquainted with defendant's handwriting. As the defendant's counsel did not cross-examine the witness as to his competency, and thereby develop the extent of his knowledge upon the subject, we must assume that it was sufficient.

3. It is further insisted there was no evidence that the damages for the alleged seduction had not been paid by the defendant. It is alleged in the petition that the damages are unpaid. This averment was perhaps unnecessary. But the objection is without merit. The whole case was tried on a theory that a demand was made which was and always had been resisted.

4. Objection is also made that there was no evidence that plaintiff was an unmarried woman. The whole record shows this to be the fact. The defendant visited her as a suitor for some 18 months, and in his letter to her he alludes to the matter of marriage by calling it “a union;” and, in the cross-examination of the plaintiff, defendant's counsel addressed her as “Miss Egan.” We think counsel for defendant would have very little respect for a court that would reverse a judgment upon an objection so barren of merit as this.

5. Objections are made to the instructions given by the court to the jury, and to the refusal to give instructions requested by the defendant. We discover no error in these respects.

6. It is claimed that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. The court instructed the jury that, “to constitute seduction, it is not sufficient to establish sexual intercourse between the parties, but the plaintiff must also show that defendant accomplished his purpose by some artifice, or that she was induced to yield to his embrace by flattery or deception. If without being deceived, and without any false promises, deceit, or artifice, she voluntarily submits to the connection, the law affords her no remedy.” The foregoing is a general statement of the law applicable to the case, which has frequently been approved by this court. See Smith v. Milburn, 17 Iowa, 30;Delve v. Boardman, 20 Iowa, 446;Brown v. Kingsley, 38 Iowa, 220;Hopkins v. Mathias, 66 Iowa, 333, 23 N. W. Rep. 732; and many other cases.

The evidence in this case shows that the defendant was the accepted suitor of the plaintiff for some 18 months prior to the alleged seduction. His visits to her averaged about once a week. The plaintiff testified that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • McGilvra v. Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • 24 Octubre 1916
    ...... that such proof, prima facie, entitles the instrument to be. received in evidence. Abbott, Civil Jury Trials, p. 442,. § 25; Murray v. Walker, 83 Iowa 202, 48 N.W. 1078; Rogers v. Ritter, 12 Wall. 317, 20 L.Ed. 417; 17 Cyc. 155, 428. . .          Proof. of ...2d ed. § 526;. Pullen v. Hutchinson, 25 Me. 249; [35 N.D. 282] . Mosher v. Farmers' & M. Nat. Bank, 51 Neb. 55,. 70 N.W. 540; Egan v. Murray, 80 Iowa 180, 45 N.W. 563; Moody v. Rowell, 17 Pick. 490, 28 Am. Dec. 317. . .          Nor is. there any merit in the ......
  • McGilvra v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • 24 Octubre 1916
    ...Jones on Evidence (2d Ed.) § 526; Pullen v. Hutchinson, 25 Me. 249; Mosher et al. v. Bank, 51 Neb. 55, 70 N. W. 540;Egan v. Murray, 80 Iowa, 180, 45 N. W. 563;Moody v. Rowell, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 490, 28 Am. Dec. 317. [4] Nor is there any merit in the contention that there is no proof of the a......
  • State v. Norman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 9 Abril 1913
    ......State v. Moffit, 155 Iowa 702, 136 N.W. 908; State v. Heatherton, 60 Iowa 175, 14 N.W. 230; Breiner v. Nugent, 136 Iowa 322, 111 N.W. 446; Egan v. Murray, 80 Iowa 180, 45 N.W. 563. Enough appears in the. record to justify the finding of the jury. . .          II. Nor should the ......
  • State v. Norman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 9 Abril 1913
    ...v. Moffit, 136 N. W. 908;State v. Heatherton, 60 Iowa, 175, 14 N. W. 230;Breiner v. Nugent, 136 Iowa, 322, 111 N. W. 446;Egan v. Murray, 80 Iowa, 180, 45 N. W. 563. Enough appears in the record to justify the finding of the jury. 2. Nor should the jury's finding that prosecutrix was of prev......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT