Miller v. State

Citation23 N.E. 94, 121 Ind. 294
Case DateDecember 18, 1889
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

121 Ind. 294
23 N.E. 94

Miller
v.
State.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 18, 1889.


Appeal from circuit court, Morgan county; John S. Tarkington, Special Judge.

This was an indictment against Albert Miller for enticing away a female for the purpose of prostitution. Defendant was convicted, and appealed.


James H. Jordan, Chas. G. Renner, Jos. V. Mitchell, and Oscar Matthews, for appellant. W. R. Harrison, Adams & Newby, N. A. Whitaker, A. M. Cunning, and E. M. McCord, for appellee.

Mitchell, C. J.

The appellant was tried and found guilty, as charged in an indictment predicated upon section 1993, Rev. St. 1881, which reads as follows: “Whoever entices or takes away any female of previous chaste character, from wherever she may be, to a house of ill fame or elsewhere, for the purpose of prostitution, shall be imprisoned,” etc. It was charged in the indictment, substantially, that the appellant, and two other men who are jointly indicted with him, did unlawfully and feloniously entice and take away, etc., a certain female named, 16 years of age, of previous chaste character, to a certain room in the house of an individual named, which was occupied by one of the defendants, “for the purpose of unlawfully and feloniously prostituting her,” the female named. In one of the counts the charge was that the female was enticed and taken, as above mentioned, for the purpose of prostituting her, and of having carnal intercourse with her. It will be observed that the act prohibited by the statute is the enticing or taking any female of previous chaste character to a house of ill fame or elsewhere, for the purpose of prostitution. The purpose of this statute doubtless was to punish debased persons, whether male or female, who should engage in the baneful and pernicious practice of inducing chaste females to become inmates or frequenters of houses of ill fame, assignation or other places, for purposes of prostitution. It is not aimed at the person, however despicable or infamous his offense, who entices, allures, or solicits a chaste female, from wherever she may be, to accompany him to any convenient or opportune place, for the sole purpose of having illicit intercourse. The offense consists in the alluring, enticing, or taking a female of chaste character to a house of ill fame or other place of like character, for the purpose of prostitution; that is, for the purpose of having common, indiscriminate, meretricious commerce with men, and not merely for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with the party who enticed or took her away. Fahnestock v. State, 102 Ind. 156, 1 N. E. Rep. 372; Osborn v. State, 52 Ind. 526; Com. v. Cook, 12 Metc. 93; State v. Stoyell, 54 Me. 24; Carpenter v. People, 8 Barb. 603;State v. Ruhl, 8 Iowa, 447;People v. Plath, 100 N. Y. 590, 3 N. E. Rep. 790.

It was essential,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • State v. Gardner, Nos. 30032
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 14, 1916
    ...v. Goodwin, 33 Kan. 538, 6 Pac. 899, 901;Fahnestock v. State, 102 Ind. 156, 1 N. E. 372;Osborn v. State, 52 Ind. 526, 528;Miller v. State, 121 Ind. 294, 23 N. E. 94, 95;State v. Brow, 64 N. H. 577, 15 Atl. 216, 217;Carpenter v. People, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 603, 610;State v. Toombs, 79 Iowa, 741,......
  • State v. Gardner, 30032
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 14, 1916
    ...Kan. 538, 6 P. 899, 901; Fahnestock v. State, (Ind.) 102 Ind. 156, 1 N.E. 372; Osborn v. State, 52 Ind. 526, 528; Miller v. State, (Ind.) 121 Ind. 294, 23 N.E. 94, 95; State v. Brow, (N. H.) 64 N.H. 577, 15 A. 216, 217; Carpenter v. People, 8 Barb. (N.Y.) 603, 610; State v. Toombs, 79 Iowa ......
  • State v. Larue's, Inc., No. 29742
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 16, 1958
    ...or class to those designated by the specific words, unless a contrary intention is clearly shown by the statute. Miller v. State, 1889, 121 Ind. 294, 23 N.E. 94; Nichols v. State, 1891, 127 Ind. 406, 26 N.E. 839; State v. Sopher, 1901, 157 Ind. 360-373, 61 N.E. 785; State [ex rel. Shanks] v......
  • McNamara v. State, No. 25081.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 24, 1932
    ...Constitution. This rule, ejusdem generis, is particularly well stated by this court in the opinion of the case of Miller v. State (1889) 121 Ind. 294, 23 N. E. 94, 95, as follows: “Where words of particular description in a statute are followed by general words, that are not so specific and......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • State v. Gardner, Nos. 30032
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 14, 1916
    ...v. Goodwin, 33 Kan. 538, 6 Pac. 899, 901;Fahnestock v. State, 102 Ind. 156, 1 N. E. 372;Osborn v. State, 52 Ind. 526, 528;Miller v. State, 121 Ind. 294, 23 N. E. 94, 95;State v. Brow, 64 N. H. 577, 15 Atl. 216, 217;Carpenter v. People, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 603, 610;State v. Toombs, 79 Iowa, 741,......
  • State v. Gardner, 30032
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 14, 1916
    ...Kan. 538, 6 P. 899, 901; Fahnestock v. State, (Ind.) 102 Ind. 156, 1 N.E. 372; Osborn v. State, 52 Ind. 526, 528; Miller v. State, (Ind.) 121 Ind. 294, 23 N.E. 94, 95; State v. Brow, (N. H.) 64 N.H. 577, 15 A. 216, 217; Carpenter v. People, 8 Barb. (N.Y.) 603, 610; State v. Toombs, 79 Iowa ......
  • State v. Larue's, Inc., No. 29742
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 16, 1958
    ...or class to those designated by the specific words, unless a contrary intention is clearly shown by the statute. Miller v. State, 1889, 121 Ind. 294, 23 N.E. 94; Nichols v. State, 1891, 127 Ind. 406, 26 N.E. 839; State v. Sopher, 1901, 157 Ind. 360-373, 61 N.E. 785; State [ex rel. Shanks] v......
  • McNamara v. State, No. 25081.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 24, 1932
    ...Constitution. This rule, ejusdem generis, is particularly well stated by this court in the opinion of the case of Miller v. State (1889) 121 Ind. 294, 23 N. E. 94, 95, as follows: “Where words of particular description in a statute are followed by general words, that are not so specific and......
  • 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