Hodges v. Bales

Decision Date17 June 1885
PartiesHodges v. Bales.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Morgan circuit court.

Levi Ferguson, J. H. Jordan, Grubbs & Parks, and O. Matthews, for appellant.

Harrison & McCord and Adams & Newby, for appellee.

Mitchell, C. J.

This action was brought by Mary M. Bales against the appellant to recover damages for her seduction. The complaint was originally in four paragraphs. Pending the action an additional paragraph was filed. Separate demurrers were filed to the first, second, third, and fourth paragraphs. The demurrer was sustained to the third, and overruled to the first, second, and fourth, and the overruling the demurrer to these paragraphs is the first error assigned. The objections which counsel make to the first paragraph are “that the means therein alleged are not sufficient to constitute seduction, nor is there any allegation in this paragraph to show that the woman was drawn aside from the path of virtue which she was herself pursuing, or that she relied upon the means and promises made by the defendant.” The only objection stated to the second is that it is alleged therein “that she was coerced and compelled to submit to the carnal intercourse with the defendant.” All that is said of the fourth is that it is similar to the second, and that it is bad for the same reasons.

In each of the foregoing paragraphs it is averred, in substance, among other things, that the plaintiff is an unmarried woman; that defendant was her suitor, and, by his visits and attentions to and professions of love and affection for her, gained her confidence, and importuned and persuaded her to have sexual intercourse with him, and that she, by reason of her confidence in and love for him, yielded to his importunities, and that pregnancy and premature birth of twins was the result. The first and fourth paragraphs each contain, in addition to the foregoing averments, an averment of a promise of marriage, and that, “by reason of said promise aforesaid, * * * and by then and there undertaking and promising to marry,” etc., the defendant seduced and debauched her. In the second and fourth paragraphs are contained, in addition to the other means alleged to have been used, averments, in effect, that the defendant coerced and compelled her to submit to sexual intercourse with him. It is not averred in either paragraph that the plaintiff was previously chaste, or of good repute for chastity. An averment of previous chastity, or good repute for chastity, is not essential in a complaint by an unmarried woman for her own seduction. This was directly ruled in Bell v. Rinker, 29 Ind. 268. It is not necessary that the means used should have been more particularly described, nor was it necessary to aver that the plaintiff relied on the defendant's promises. Hart v. Walker, 77 Ind. 331;Rees v. Cupp, 59 Ind. 566. That the second and fourth paragraphs contained averments that, in addition to the other means used, the intercourse was had by means of coercion and compulsion, did not make them subject to demurrer. We agree with appellant's counsel that seduction cannot be accomplished by force alone, but the other averments with which those objected to are coupled make a case of seduction. If the arts and wiles set out were employed to gain the plaintiff's confidence, and her consent was finally obtained through persuasion and force combined, we are not prepared to say that this would not be seduction. That it remains uncertain whether the intercourse was had by means of force, or by arts which amount to seduction, or both combined, was not a ground for demurrer. There was no error in overruling the demurrer to these paragraphs of the complaint.

It is assigned for error that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial, and the first point urged under this assignment is that the evidence does not sustain the verdict. It is insisted that if the plaintiff's account of the matter be accepted as true, it makes a case of rape and not of seduction. The substance of plaintiff's testimony was that the defendant had been her suitor; that he solicited her in marriage; that she had consented; that he had asked her to wait for him; that on account of his mother he could not then marry; that defendant's mother was an aged, palsied invalid, and in infirm health, and that he and his mother composed the family at that time; that he procured plaintiff to come and live with his mother to nurse and care for her; that soon after she went to care for his mother and household he came to her bed in the room occupied by the invalid mother, while she was asleep at night, and carried her bodily across the hall to his own room in her night-clothes; that she resisted, and he compelled her to stay, locking the door and refusing to let her go. She testified that he tried to persuade her to yield to him, by telling her he would marry her if any trouble resulted. He also told her he would have his brother Perry move into the house and take care of his mother, and he would marry her in any event. She refused consent and struggled to get away, and he held her fast; she tried to make an outcry, but could make no one hear. She tried to get his arm loose, but could not; and finally, worn out, and between entreaty and force, she submitted. The plaintiff testified that the defendant had intercourse with her on other occasions, and adds that it was always against her will. The defendant denied having had any sexual intercourse at all with plaintiff.

Over an instruction which told the jury, in substance, that if they believed from the evidence that the plaintiff yielded to the defendant on account of force or coercion they should find for him, the jury, nevertheless, found for the plaintiff. We cannot say that the evidence does not support the verdict. We do not mean to say that ordinarily complaint for seduction alone would be supported by proof of intercourse had under compulsion without any promises or persuasion such as would constitute seduction; but the complaint in this case, taking all its allegations together, combines an action for damages for seduction with one for assault and battery and resulting injury. Although neither paragraph of the complaint was, on that account, subject to a general demurrer, the defendant, perhaps, had he chosen, might have required the plaintiff to state her several causes of action in separate paragraphs; but with his consent the whole was tried together, and we think he cannot now complain. Assuming the facts testified to by the plaintiff to be true, she might have maintained an action...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Johnston v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 23 Diciembre 1958
    ...v. State, supra.6 Douthitt v. State, 1896, 144 Ind. 397, 42 N.E. 907; Patterson v. State, 1880, 70 Ind. 341. See also Hodges v. Bales, 1885, 102 Ind. 494, 1 N.E. 692.7 State v. Scott, 1949, 359 Mo. 631, 223 S.W.2d 453: Perkins v. State, 1931, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 399, 46 S.W.2d 672; State v. Carri......
  • State v. Maggard
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 20 Mayo 1913
    ...of Mr. Justice Blackford the more recent cases of Dailey v. State ex rel., 28 Ind. 285; Brookbank v. State ex rel., 55 Ind. 169; Hodges v. Bales, 102 Ind. 494 ; Dodd v. More, 92 Ind. 397; Carter v. Carter, 79 Ind. 466. The appellants further contend that, if corroborative statements may be ......
  • State v. Maggard
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 20 Mayo 1913
    ... ... Justice ... Blackford the more recent cases of Dailey v. State ex ... rel., 28 Ind. 285; Brookbank v. State ex rel., ... 55 Ind. 169; Hodges v. Bales, 102 Ind. 494, 1 N.E ... 692; Dodd v. Moore, 92 Ind. 397; Carter v ... Carter, 79 Ind. 466. The appellants further contend that ... if ... ...
  • Oberlin v. Upson
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 18 Abril 1911
    ... ... (6 ed.), Sec. 625, p. 752; Abbott's Trial Evidence (2 ... ed.), 859; 2 Kinkead's Code Pleading (2 ed.), Sec. 1124; ... Hodges v. Bales, 102 Ind. 494; Hood v. Sudderth, 111 N. Car., ... 215; Smith v. Yaryan, 69 Ind. 445, 35 Am. 232; 25 Am. & Eng ... Ency. Law (2 ed.), 197; ... ...

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