People v. Lonsdale

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtGRANT
Citation122 Mich. 388,81 N.W. 277
PartiesPEOPLE v. LONSDALE.
Decision Date21 December 1899

122 Mich. 388
81 N.W. 277

PEOPLE
v.
LONSDALE.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 21, 1899.


Error to recorder's court of Detroit; William W. Chapin, Judge.

Alice G. Lonsdale, convicted of manslaughter by abortion, brings error. Reversed.

[81 N.W. 277]

Orville B. Cragg (Philip T. Van Zile, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Horace M. Oren, Atty. Gen., and Allan H. Frazer, Pros. Atty., for the People.


GRANT, C. J.

Respondent was convicted of the crime of manslaughter by abortion. The theory of the prosecution was that on February 21, 1899, the respondent used an instrument for the purpose of procuring the abortion; that the womb was perforated; that deceased aborted on the morning of the 21st; and that she died at 5 o'clock on the 23d. That an abortion had been committed was conclusively established.

1. The first error alleged is the admission of the dying statement of the deceased that the respondent committed the act. The objection is that it does not appear that the dying declaration was made under a sense of impending death. The decisions upon this subject are many. See People v. Knapp, 26 Mich. 115;People v. Olmstead, 30 Mich. 431;People v. Beverly, 108 Mich. 509, 66 N. W. 379;People v. Weaver, 108 Mich. 649, 66 N. W. 567;People v. Simpson, 48 Mich. 477, 12 N. W. 662. The mother of the deceased testified that the daughter was ill on the morning of the 22d; that later in the day she had pains and cramps; that she vomited, was feverish, and looked very ill. Dr. Day was sent for in the evening, but was unable to come until about 6 o'clock on the morning of the 23d. The doctor testified that on entering

[81 N.W. 278]

the room he formed his opinion very quickly, from the odor, that the girl had blood poison, brought on by an abortion. Her pulse was between 130 and 140; her temperature 103 or 104; her condition very low. ‘Q. Did you communicate to her her condition? A. I told her that she was a very sick girl, and that I was surprised to find her in that condition; that under such circumstances I could promise her nothing in the way of recovery, but that I would simply promise to do all that medical skill was able to do under the circumstances; and that it would be impossible for me to properly treat her in her own house, and that she would have to be taken to the hospital for proper treatment. Q. Did she seem to realize that she was liable to die? A. Yes, sir. Q. How did she look? A. She looked like a person dying. Q. Then? A. Then; yes, sir. Q. Did she appear to realize it after you told her this? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ask her then any questions as to the cause of her sickness? A. I told her that, considering the grave condition in which I found her, that it was only fair and right that she should tell me how she happened to get in such a condition.’ The deceased then told the doctor that the respondent produced the abortion by means of an instrument. The girl was removed to the hospital about 8 o'clock that morning, and died at 5 in the afternoon. Greenleaf says: ‘It is enough, if it satisfactorily appears, in any mode, that they [dying declarations] were made under that sanction [impending death], whether it be proved by the express language of the declarant, or be inferred from his evident danger, or the opinions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • State v. Steadman, No. 16339
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 12, 1950
    ...the act. State v. Cragun, 85 Utah 149, 38 P.2d 1071; People v. Seaman, 107 Mich. 348, 65 N.W. 203, 61 Am.St.Rep. 326; People v. Lonsdale, 122 Mich. 388, 81 N.W. 277; People v. Hodge, 141 Mich. 312, 104 N.W. 599, 113 Am.St.Rep. 525; People v. Hickok, 56 Cal.App. 13, 204 P. 555; Clark v. Comm......
  • People v. Duncan, No. 7
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • January 1, 1976
    ...prove intent where the evidence probative of the charged offense is ambiguous or equivocal on the element of intent, People v. Lonsdale, 122 Mich. 388, 392, 81 N.W. 277 (1899); People v. Petropoulapos, 217 Mich. 198, 203, 185 N.W. 730 (1921); People v. Minney, 155 Mich. 534, 538-539, 119 N.......
  • State v. Evans, No. 10347
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 10, 1951
    ...acts was not admitted to show intent or motive, but in that case was admitted to establish defendant's guilt. In People v. Lonsdale, 122 Mich. 388, 81 N.W. 277, the court adopted the principle that proof of other offenses of a similar character was inadmissible to show motive or intent wher......
  • People v. Fleming, No. 146.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • July 20, 1923
    ...of another. It is within the rule of People v. Jacks, 76 Mich. 218, 42 N. W. 1134;Lightfoot v. People, 16 Mich. 507;People v. Lonsdale, 122 Mich. 388, 81 N. W. 277;State v. Johnson, 38 La. Ann. 686;People v. Barnes, 48 Cal. 551;People v. Ascher, 126 Mich. 637, 86 N. W. 140.’ In that case th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • State v. Steadman, No. 16339
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 12, 1950
    ...the act. State v. Cragun, 85 Utah 149, 38 P.2d 1071; People v. Seaman, 107 Mich. 348, 65 N.W. 203, 61 Am.St.Rep. 326; People v. Lonsdale, 122 Mich. 388, 81 N.W. 277; People v. Hodge, 141 Mich. 312, 104 N.W. 599, 113 Am.St.Rep. 525; People v. Hickok, 56 Cal.App. 13, 204 P. 555; Clark v. Comm......
  • People v. Duncan, No. 7
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • January 1, 1976
    ...prove intent where the evidence probative of the charged offense is ambiguous or equivocal on the element of intent, People v. Lonsdale, 122 Mich. 388, 392, 81 N.W. 277 (1899); People v. Petropoulapos, 217 Mich. 198, 203, 185 N.W. 730 (1921); People v. Minney, 155 Mich. 534, 538-539, 119 N.......
  • State v. Evans, No. 10347
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 10, 1951
    ...acts was not admitted to show intent or motive, but in that case was admitted to establish defendant's guilt. In People v. Lonsdale, 122 Mich. 388, 81 N.W. 277, the court adopted the principle that proof of other offenses of a similar character was inadmissible to show motive or intent wher......
  • People v. Fleming, No. 146.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • July 20, 1923
    ...of another. It is within the rule of People v. Jacks, 76 Mich. 218, 42 N. W. 1134;Lightfoot v. People, 16 Mich. 507;People v. Lonsdale, 122 Mich. 388, 81 N. W. 277;State v. Johnson, 38 La. Ann. 686;People v. Barnes, 48 Cal. 551;People v. Ascher, 126 Mich. 637, 86 N. W. 140.’ In that case th......
  • 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