State v. Adams

• Decision Date: 01 February 1904
• Citation: 78 S.W. 588,179 Mo. 334
• Parties: STATE v. ADAMS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

78 S.W. 588

179 Mo. 334

STATE v. ADAMS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 1, 1904.

ENTICEMENT — CONCUBINAGE — STATUTES — CONSTRUCTION — DIFFERENT OFFENSES — JOINDER — COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE — EVIDENCE.

1. Rev. St. 1899, § 1842, provides that any person who shall take away any female under the age of 18 years from any person having legal charge of her person, either for the purpose of prostitution or concubinage, shall be punished, etc. Held, that the terms "prostitution" and "concubinage" were not used synonymously, but that the statute created separate offenses, which could not be joined in the same count of an indictment.

2. Defendant induced an unmarried female, 15 years of age, to leave her father's house with him at night, by offering to give her $200. They drove to a railroad station, and thence went to a city, where defendant took the girl to a rooming house, and there remained, occupying the same room with her, over night and until the following day, when they went to the house of a friend of the girl in another town, where she remained until the next day, when she visited another friend alone, where she remained for five days, when defendant called for her, and took her to a rooming house, where they stayed all night, occupying the same bed, and on the next day went to another rooming house, where defendant introduced her as his wife. They remained there four days and four nights, living together as man and wife, until they were arrested. Defendant claimed that he intended to marry the girl, but that she kept putting it off; but she testified that she never intended to marry defendant. Held, that such facts justified a finding that the girl was not defendant's common-law wife, and that he was therefore guilty of taking her away from her father for the purpose of concubinage, in violation of Rev. St. 1899, § 1842.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cass County; Wm. L. Jarrott, Judge.

Joseph J. Adams was convicted of taking a female under the age of 18 years away from her father for the purpose of concubinage, and he appeals. Affirmed.

W. D. Summers, C. H. Ennis, and A. A. Whitsett, for appellant. The Attorney General and Sam B. Jeffries, for the State.

BURGESS, J.

Defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Cass county, and his punishment fixed at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, under an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of said county charging him with having at said county, on the 8th day of May, 1903, taken away from her father one Della May Oram, a female under the age of 18 years, to wit, of the age of 15 years, for the purpose of concubinage, by having illicit intercourse with her. After unsuccessful motions for new trial and in arrest, defendant brings the case to this court by appeal for review.

The facts, briefly stated, are about as follows: On February 8, 1902, defendant formed the acquaintance of Della May Oram, who was then about 14 years of age. Shortly thereafter he went to the home of her father to work, and continued to work there until the following May. During this time the defendant and Della May became engaged to be married in May, though she testified that she never intended to marry him, and that the engagement was broken off in March, and was never thereafter renewed. It was proven that defendant admitted that while living at the home of the father of Della May Oram he had connection with her, but said he was not to blame, as she came to his bed. Defendant denied, however, making such statement, or that it was true in fact. He bought her an engagement ring, but she refused to exhibit it on her finger at any time, declaring always that she did not recognize it as an engagement ring, as she did not intend to marry him. This agreement was never communicated to the girl's parents, Della May informing defendant that her parents were opposed to his paying attention to her. On the 8th day of May, 1903, defendant, as shown by the girl's testimony, promised, and she accepted the promise, to give her $200 if she would leave with him. This money was never paid. According to the plans previously made between them, defendant secured a livery team and vehicle at Harrisonville, some miles from where the prosecutrix's father lived, and proceeded to the Oram home, arriving there about 11 o'clock in the evening. The girl met him at the barn, with her clothing, according to the understanding previously formed. The girl's father and mother knew nothing of her intention or of her leaving home until after she had gone. She drove with him to Pleasant Hill, where they took the train for Kansas City, arriving there about 6 o'clock the next morning. They went to a rooming house, where they remained until the next morning, when she went across the state line to Sheffield, Kan., so that she might visit some friends, former neighbors of her family in Cass county, Mo. Defendant went with her to Sheffield, but returned immediately to Kansas City. He visited her but once while she was in Kansas, though she remained there about three days. She left the home of her friends in Kansas, and returned with defendant to Kansas City. They engaged a room in some rooming house, and remained there one night, then going to a rooming house on Mulberry street where the defendant had arranged for a room, and where the defendant introduced the girl to the landlady as his wife. In this room they cooked their meals and slept until the following Tuesday, when defendant was arrested by a police officer upon a telegram from the sheriff of Cass county. While they were at the Mulberry street house the defendant had intercourse with the prosecutrix several times. When he took her to this house he stated to the housekeeper that she was his wife. Before he had intercourse with her, they had arranged to be married the day following defendant's arrest. The defense was a common-law marriage.

Over the objection and exceptions of defendant the court instructed the jury as follows:

"(1) The jury are instructed that if you find from the evidence that at the county of Cass and state of Missouri, at any time within three years next before the filing of the information herein, the defendant did take away Della May Oram from her father, Henry Oram, for the purpose of concubinage, and that the said Della May Oram was a female under the age of eighteen years, you will find him guilty, and assess his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than two years nor more than five years. Even should you believe from the evidence that the said Della May Oram was of easy virtue, or had previously had sexual intercourse with defendant, or had consented to go away with defendant, or that she consented to have sexual intercourse with the defendant, yet none or all of these facts would constitute any defense to this prosecution.

"(2) The jury are instructed that by the word `concubinage,' as used in the information and instructions, is meant the act or practice of a man cohabiting in sexual intercourse with a woman to whom he is not married. If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant, Joseph J. Adams, did take the witness Della May Oram away from her father, and that said Della May Oram was at the time a female under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of cohabiting with her as a man and woman in sexual intercourse for any length of time, but for more than a single act of sexual intercourse, without the authority of a marriage, it would be sufficient to constitute the offense charged in the information.

"(3) The law presumes the innocence of the defendant, and this presumption continues with him until it has been overcome by evidence which establishes his guilt to your satisfaction and beyond a reasonable doubt; and the burden of proving his guilt rests with the state. If, however,...