Putnam v. State

• Decision Date: 29 April 1891
• Citation: 16 S.W. 97
• Parties: PUTNAM v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 97

16 S.W. 97

PUTNAM v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Texas.

April 29, 1891.

Appeal from county court, Dallas county.

W. T. Short, for appellant. R. H. Harrison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WHITE, P. J.

This prosecution and conviction in the court below was for the crime of seduction. Our statutory provisions, in so far as they are involved in the questions submitted on the appeal here presented, are: "If any person, by promise to marry, shall seduce an unmarried female under the age of twenty-five years, and shall have carnal knowledge of such female, he shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years, or by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars." Pen. Code, art. 814. "The term `seduction' is used in the sense in which it is commonly understood." Pen. Code, art. 815. Mr. Webster defines "seduction" to be: "(1) The act of seducing or of enticing from the path of duty; specifically, the act or crime of persuading a female to surrender her chastity. (2) That which seduces or is adapted or employed to seduce, means of leading astray," etc. The word "seduction" is derived from two Latin words, "se," which means "away," and "duco," which means "to lead," and together they mean "to lead away." "Seduction," then, implies that the female is led away from the path of rectitude and virtue, and is induced to indulge in carnal intercourse by the means used. "Generally, in order to establish the charge of seduction, it must be made to appear that the intercourse was accomplished by some artifice or deception; and it is held that something more than a mere appeal to the lust or passion of the woman must be shown before the law will inflict the penalty prescribed for the crime." State v. Fitzgerald, 63 Iowa, 268, 19 N. W. Rep. 202. Our statute expressly provides that the seduction must be accomplished by means of a "promise to marry." As was said in People v. De Fore, 64 Mich. 693, 31 N. W. Rep. 585: "Under this statute the offense is committed if the man has carnal intercourse, to which the woman assented, if such assent was obtained by a promise of marriage, made by the man at the time, and to which, without such promise, she would not have yielded. People v. Millspaugh, 11 Mich. 278. The offense consists in enticing a woman from the path of virtue, and obtaining her consent to illicit intercourse, by promises made at the time. * * * The promise, and yielding her virtue in consequence thereof, is the gist of the offense. If she resists, but finally assents or yields, induced thereto or in reliance upon the promise made, the offense is committed." Boyce v. People, 55 N. Y. 644. Mr. Bishop, in his work on Statutory Crimes, (section 638, 2d Ed.,) says: "Though the parties are already under marriage engagement, if the woman yields, not by reason of the man's promise of marriage, but simply for the gratification of a criminal desire, he does not commit the offense; yet the substance of the engagement does not render his act less a crime if she submits from reliance thereon." In the words of BLECKLEY, J., (Wilson v. State, 58 Ga. 328:) "To make love to a woman, woo her, make honorable proposals of marriage, have them accepted, and afterwards undo her under a solemn repetition of the the engagement vow, is to employ persuasion as well as promises of marriage." Under a statute quite similar to ours, where the language of...