McCaughey v. State

Decision Date08 January 1901
Docket Number19,302
Citation59 N.E. 169,156 Ind. 41
PartiesMcCaughey v. The State
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

From the Huntington Circuit Court.

Affirmed.

J. B Kenner, U. S. Lesh and J. F. France, for appellant.

W. L Taylor, Attorney-General, Merrill Moores and C. C. Hadley for State.

OPINION

Monks, J.

Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of causing, by means of a drug, the miscarriage and death of one Eliza Dyer, in violation of § 1996 Burns 1894, § 1923 R. S. 1881 and Horner 1897.

The errors assigned and not waived call in question the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial. It is insisted that the court erred in giving instructions four and eight. The objection urged by appellant is that said instructions recognize no distinction between a case where a woman who takes the drug persuaded the defendant to secure it for her, he knowing the purpose, and a case where he obtained it at his own instance, and induced her to take it. Said instructions proceed upon the theory that it is immaterial, under the statute, whether or not the accused is actually present when the woman swallowed the drug, but that it is sufficient if he furnished her the drug at her request, knowing at the time that she wanted it for the purpose of procuring a miscarriage of a child with which she was pregnant, and that she took the same, and miscarries or dies in consequence thereof. Section 1996 Burns 1894, § 1923 R. S. 1881 and Horner 1897, so far as applicable here, is as follows: "Whoever prescribes or administers to any pregnant woman, or to any woman whom he supposes to be pregnant, any drug, medicine, or substance whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman; * * * shall, if the woman miscarries or dies in consequence thereof, be fined," etc. The word administer in said section does not signify merely the manual administering of the drug, medicine, or substance, but it has a much wider meaning. Among the definitions of said word are the following: "To furnish, to give, to administer medicine, to direct and cause it to be taken." (Webster's Dictionary.) "To supply, furnish, or provide with." (Standard Dictionary.) As used in said section, the word administer was clearly intended to cover the whole ground named, making it an offense to give, furnish, supply, provide with, or cause to be given, furnished, supplied, or provided with, or taken any such drug, medicine, or substance, with the intent and either result named in said section. And said word embraced and was intended to embrace every mode of giving, furnishing, supplying, providing with, or causing to be taken any such drug, medicine, or substance. This is both the letter and the spirit of the section.

A penal statute should be construed according to its plain import, to give it life according to its apparent purpose. State v. Moothart (Iowa), 109 Iowa 130, 80 N.W. 301; La Beau v. People, 34 N.Y. 223 232, 233; 2 Bishop's Crim. Proc., § 645; Bishop's Stat. Crimes, § 747. Said section makes it a crime either to prescribe or administer such drug, medicine, or substance, with the intent and result named therein. It is therefore immaterial in this case whether said Eliza Dyer knew of the properties of said drug and the purpose for which it was used, or whether she requested appellant to procure said drug for her, or he furnished it to her without such request, or whether she decided to take it before appellant procured and gave it to her. If appellant knew or supposed she was pregnant, and knew the purpose for which she desired the drug, and furnished it to her, and she, afterwards, when he was not present, took the same, he administered said drug to her within the meaning of said section. The fact that § 1997 Burns 1894, § 1924 R. S. 1881 and Horner 1897, makes it a misdemeanor for a woman to "solicit of any person any medicine, drug, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Estep v. State
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 5 Enero 1946
    ... ... 'administer' was clearly intended to cover the whole ... ground named, making it an offense to give, furnish, supply, ... provide with, or cause to be given, furnished, supplied, or ... provided with, or taken, any such drug, medicine, or ... substance,' etc. McCaughey v. State, 156 Ind ... 41, 42, 43, 59 N.E. 169, 170 ...          These ... citations are in accord with a number of definitions of the ... word 'administer' collected in 2 Words and Phrases, ... Perm.Ed., p. 429 ...          Our ... holding that the demurrer to the ... ...
  • Osburn v. The State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 23 Febrero 1905
    ... ... 277] Coppenhaver v. State (1903), 160 Ind ... 540, 551, 552, 67 N.E. 453; Keith v. State ... (1901), 157 Ind. 376, 383, 61 N.E. 716; Braxton v ... State, supra ; Sharp v ... State (1903), 161 Ind. 288, 290, 68 N.E. 286; ... Lee v. State, supra ; ... McCaughey v. State (1901), 156 Ind. 41, 44, ... 59 N.E. 169; Deal v. State (1895), 140 Ind ... 354, ... ...
  • State v. Montifoire
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 9 Febrero 1922
    ... ... life," shall be punished as therein provided. G. L ...          Under ... such a statute, it is not necessary to prove that the ... respondent manually administered the drug or thing in ... question; it is enough that he furnished it ... McCaughey v. State, 156 Ind. 41, 59 N.E ... 169. It is not necessary to show that the substance ... administered is of a noxious character, or that it possessed ... qualities efficient to produce a miscarriage (Com ... v. Morrison, 82 Mass. 224; State v ... Shaft, 166 N.C. 407, 81 S.E. 932, Ann. Cas ... ...
  • McClure v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 22 Noviembre 1948
    ... ... said section. And said word embraced and was intended to ... embrace every mode of giving, furnishing, supplying, ... providing with, or causing to be taken, any such drug, ... medicine, or substance. This is both the letter and spirit of ... the section. McCaughey v. State, 156 Ind ... 41, 59 N.E. 169. So say we, the well known meaning ... of these words, as given by any of the standard ... lexicographers, shows that the presence of the defendant ... in person at the time the medicine is delivered to or taken ... by the prosecutrix is not necessarily ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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