Lind v. State

• Decision Date: 18 November 1918
• Docket Number: 248
• Citation: 207 S.W. 47,137 Ark. 92
• Parties: LIND v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

207 S.W. 47

137 Ark. 92

LIND v. STATE

No. 248

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 18, 1918

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division; Jno. W. Wade Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction of the crime of seduction. Eva Wilder, the prosecutrix, testified that she was 23 years of age; that she had kept company with the appellant off and on for two or three years up to the middle of March, 1917, when she had sexual intercourse with him. During the year preceding he had visited her sometimes two or three times a week and sometimes about once a month. Appellant had other company during that year before the month of February, but not thereafter. Appellant and the prosecutrix went together about a month before the act of sexual intercourse. Appellant told the prosecutrix that it was all right for them to have sexual intercourse and her love for him and his promise to marry her induced her to yield to his embraces. The prosecutrix at the time was a virgin. The date fixed for their marriage was July 8, 1917. Appellant was with her that night. She told him of her condition and he said he was not able to marry. He went away to Oklahoma. Prosecutrix gave birth to a child. Appellant returned and they were married October 10, 1917, and lived together until October 12, 1917, when appellant deserted her. She gave him no cause whatever for deserting her. He went away to attend the funeral of his uncle, and told prosecutrix he would be back that evening or the next morning on the local. Everything was perfectly pleasant between them. The prosecutrix did not see him any more until October, 1918.

The father of the prosecutrix, R. L. Wilder, testified that the appellant worked for him in the year of 1912. He was at witness' home often during the years of 1915, 1916 and 1917; visited his daughter once or twice a week. Witness' daughter and appellant went out to gatherings together. During appellant's visits to his daughter, witness did not think that any one else visited her. Witness further testified on direct examination that he went to Oklahoma to get the appellant to come back and marry his daughter as he had agreed to do. Witness walked up to him where he found him and spoke to him as usual, saying, "Hello, Joe," and appellant spoke to witness and witness called him to one side and said, "Joe, I want to see you a little bit. I come for you to go back and cover up your wrongs. He said "What have I done?" Witness replied, "You know what you have done. You know that you have ruined my girl." He hesitated a little bit and said, "Oh, I don't know. She didn't tell me." Witness said "No, she says she told you and you agreed to marry her. That is the way you started it." He said, "Yes, I know I agreed to marry her. That is the way I overcame her. We were to go and get married. I told her if she would come across and have intercourse with me that we were going to get married; that we were engaged to get married and it would be all right." Witness said, "Now come on back and let's cover that up and be a man." He said, "I can't go now." Witness said, "Yes, you can go. Come on back now and cover that all up and no one will be the wiser," and he agreed to come back and said, "Well, I know I done wrong. I know I done it. I know I agreed to marry her, and I will go back and marry her."

Witness and appellant walked back to the station to find out what time they could get a train back to Little Rock. They could not get one that night and appellant said, "We will go over to Oklahoma City this evening. I will go back and get ready. Come and go with me, and we will have dinner together, and we will go back this evening." Witness said, "Joe, I'm so worn out I don't feel like going. Go ahead and come back over here." Appellant said, "I will be back between one and two o'clock." He went away to get his clothes, and witness never saw him any more until he got hold of him in the Mangrum jail in October. Witness made a trip after the appellant to try to get him to come back and cover his wrongs. He made another trip to Oklahoma to try to locate him and couldn't locate him, and witness then sent a wire to Mangrum, Oklahoma, and got him there. Witness was a deputy sheriff and brought him back after he was arrested there.

After they arrived here (in Little Rock), witness and his two sons and appellant went into Snodgress' office and they fixed up there what they would do. Appellant told it there that he had agreed to marry her if she would have intercourse with him. He told witness and his two sons that he obtained intercourse with witness' daughter by promising to marry her. Witness had a pistol on all the time while he was in Snodgress' office. On cross-examination witness stated that his first trip to Oklahoma was in August of 1917. He had learned the day before he left from the doctor of his daughter's condition; had not talked with her. Witness met the appellant at El Reno, Oklahoma, and told him he had ruined his daughter and he said, "Yes, I have," and made a clean breast of it and told witness that she was overcome by his promise to marry her. Appellant did not come back with witness at that time. He ran away. Witness then went for him again about the 12th of September. Witness went before a justice of the peace and got a warrant charging appellant with the crime of seduction. He took him from the jail at Mangrum and brought him to Oklahoma City hand-cuffed. There he took off the hand-cuffs. Witness notified his son the day before he left Oklahoma City that he was going to leave with appellant on a certain day. One of the witness' sons got on the train at Pinnacle and came on with witness and appellant to Little Rock. Witness' other son met them at the Tenth Street station in Little Rock. Witness went home and brought his daughter to Isgrig's office where the ceremony was performed. Witness sent his son with the appellant to get the license. Appellant was under arrest when he was married. There was no preparation made by witness' family for the wedding.

H. C. Wilder, a brother of the prosecutrix, testified that at Snodgress' office and while appellant was under arrest, the following conversation took place: He (appellant) said that he would agree to marry her if she would treat him right, and she told him she would treat him right if he would marry her, and she would live with him and do all she could for him, and he said he would marry her if she treated him right and which he promised to do and he married her. Witness was asked if he or anybody else made threats to him and answered, "No, sir." He was further asked, "did he make his statements freely and voluntarily and answered, "Yes." Witness further testified that they were married while the appellant was under arrest.

L. C. Wilder testified that he was a brother of the prosecutrix and met his father and brother and appellant at the Tenth Street station. He had received a telegram notifying him they would arrive. They went to Snodgress' office. The following conversation occurred between the appellant and witness: "He asked me what did I think about it and I said, 'Joe, now I am going to leave that to you. You have wronged the girl and I said it is your place to straighten it up.' He said, I know I have wronged the girl, and am willing to straighten it up. I promised her before we had this intercourse that I would marry her, and I am going to stick to it if there is any chance. He said he did not have any means to get married. He asked me if I would get him some clothes and give him some money to get married and I told him I would, and I went and bought him a suit of clothes and gave him money to buy his certificate and then gave him money to go to her home. After they were married, they went to my house and stayed all night with me, and the next day they started for her home at Wilder. He voluntarily made those statements to me. Nobody made any threats toward him. Shortly after that he abandoned and left her."

Several witnesses on behalf of the appellant testified that the general reputation of prosecutrix for truth and morality was bad, and also that her reputation for chastity was bad, and they would not believe her on oath. The appellant testified admitting that he had had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, but he denied that before such intercourse he had made her any promise to marry her. He testified that he went to Oklahoma because her father had threatened to kill him, and when her father came to Oklahoma he told him he would come back, but that he would not marry his daughter upon any consideration. Appellant was arrested on a charge of seduction, was put in jail at Mangrum, Oklahoma, and Mr. Wilder, prosecutrix' father, came there for appellant. He further testified: "From the time I left Oklahoma City or Mangrum jail, he (Wilder) said I had to marry his daughter or he was going to kill me. Said I had my choice." He denied having any of the conversations testified to by the witnesses for the State. He stated that he told them he would marry her rather than be killed, but would not live with her. In regard to the alleged desertion he testified: "We went to Lem's house, stayed all night and I went to Conway next morning. I told her I was going home and would not be back. Made no promise to come back and have not been back since."

In rebuttal the State introduced the testimony of several witnesses who testified that the reputation of the prosecutrix for morality was good. At the conclusion of the testimony the appellant, among other prayers for instructions asked the court to direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, which the court refused, and to which the appellant duly excepted. The ruling of the...