Slocum v. People of State

• Citation: 90 Ill. 274,1878 WL 10146
• Parties: JAY SLOCUM et al.v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
• Decision Date: 30 September 1878
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

90 Ill. 274

1878 WL 10146 (Ill.)

JAY SLOCUM et al.

v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1878.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Henry county; the Hon. JOHN J. GLENN, Judge, presiding.

This was an indictment against Jay Slocum and Rose Slocum for the abduction of Alcinda Templeton, containing two counts. The first charges the defendants with having enticed Alcinda Templeton, an unmarried female of chaste life and conversation, from her parents' house, for the purpose of prostitution. The second charges them with having enticed her away from her parents' house for the purpose of concubinage. A trial was had, resulting in a verdict finding the defendants guilty, and fixing their term of imprisonment at eight years in the penitentiary, upon which the court rendered judgment.

Messrs. M. SHALLENBARGER & SON, for the plaintiffs in error.

Mr. T. E. MILCHRIST, for the People. Mr. JUSTICE BAKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

We are called upon to give a construction to the first section of the Criminal Code, Revised Statutes 1874, p. 352, which reads as follows:

“Whoever entices or takes away any unmarried female of a chaste life and conversation from the parents' house, or wherever she may be found, for the purpose of prostitution or concubinage, and whoever aids and assists in such abduction for such purpose, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than ten years.”

The first question that arises upon this record is, as to what constitutes an enticing or taking away from the parents' house, within the purview of this statute. Is it sufficient that a girl living with her parents is induced, by persuasion or enticements, to go to some convenient place, away from her father's house but in the immediate neighborhood, for the purposes of prostitution, where she is gone only for an hour or two at a time, she continuing all the while to dwell with the parents, as usual? We think it plain, both upon reason and authority, that the taking or enticing is not necessarily to a place distant from the family residence, or that any particular length of distance is required in order to bring the case within this requirement of the statute. If any fixed distance is a prerequisite to the commission of the offense charged, then it is difficult to perceive how or by what means we are to ascertain what this required distance is, and to distinguish cases without the statute from those within, and determine where the dividing line is. So, also, it would appear it is not essential that the girl should be kept permanently away from the parental home, or that there should be any intention so to keep her. Bishop's Stat. Crimes, 637.

Under English enactments of a somewhat similar character, it was held to be a sufficient taking where the girl was taken for an hour or two from her father's house and married, but not defiled. Regina v. Baillie, 8 Cox C. C. 238. And in Regina v. Timmins, 8 Cox C. C. 401, it was held sufficient where the defendant had been three days sleeping with her at night. In People v. Parshall, 6 Parker's C. R. 129, which was prosecuted under a New York statute making it a penal offense to take away any female under the age of fourteen years from her father, mother, guardian, or other person having the legal charge of her person, it was held that to constitute a taking under the statute there must be some positive act to get the female away from the person having the legal charge of her, and that a mere seduction did not amount to a taking; but in that case it did not appear that the defendant ever was at the house of the person having charge of the girl, nor does it appear from the report of the case that he ever assisted or influenced her to leave such person for any distance whatever, or for any space of time, however temporary. The opinion states, “all the meetings he had with her were in the streets, and the testimony of the girl does not tend to show that there was any taking of her, in the sense of the statute.” It does not appear that the meetings were even preconcerted. The girl had already left the person under whose control she was, and the defendant then met and attempted to seduce her. The case only reiterates the well-established principle, that if the female leaves her home of her own accord, and without any enticement or interference on the part of the prisoner, then the offense can not be committed. Bishop S. C. 634, 640, and authorities there cited.

In Regina v. Miller, 14 English Reports, by Moak, 633, the girl was in the lawful charge of her master, and not of her father, at the time of the alleged offense, and she had permission from her master to be away, and the prisoner had no connection with the transaction until after she had left his house under such permission. The prosecution was based on 24 and 25 Vict. C. 100, sec. 55, which imposes punishment on any one who shall unlawfully take an unmarried girl under the age of sixteen years “ out of the possession and against the will of her father or mother or any other person having the lawful care or charge of her.” The sole intention of the enactment was to protect the lawful custodian in the possession of female children, and under the circumstances of that case it was held, that there was no taking and keeping such as the law required to sustain a conviction under that statute. Not only was the statute different from ours in phraseology, but its whole scope, meaning and purpose were different.

Enticing or taking away a female from the parents' home, for the purpose of prostitution, is clearly within the language of our statute, be that taking or enticing to a place distant or near, or be it for a long or short space of time. The crime charged is abduction, and it is so styled in the body of the statute. The taking or enticing away from the parents' house is the gist of the offense. Under the English statutes against abducting an heiress, the offense might well be committed although the detention was but temporary and the transaction confined to but an exceedingly limited territory. Such enticing or taking away is also within the intention of our statute. The legislature, in passing the statute under consideration, had undoubtedly in view the punishment of pimps and procurers who entice and carry off young girls and induce them to abandon, for once and all, their homes and the control of their parents for the purpose of becoming permanent inmates of houses of ill-fame or living as concubines; but it also had in view such persons, more especially in large towns and cities, as entice girls from the parents' house to a den of infamy in the immediate neighborhood, for the purpose of prostituting...