State v. Brandenberg

Decision Date14 February 1911
Citation232 Mo. 531,134 S.W. 529
PartiesSTATE v. BRANDENBERG.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; J. Hugo Grimm, Judge.

Broughton Brandenberg was convicted of enticing a child from its father in violation of statute, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Simon S. Bass and Vital W. Garesche, for appellant. E. W. Major, Atty. Gen., and Jas. T. Blair, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, J.

The defendant was convicted in the circuit court of St. Louis city on an indictment charging him with maliciously, forcibly, and fraudulently enticing and decoying away one James Sheppard Cabanne, Jr., a child of seven, with intent to detain and conceal said child from his father, James Sheppard Cabanne, Sr., in violation of section 4489, Rev. St. 1909.

The record in this case is rather voluminous, made so by injecting into same the history of the marital infelicities of James Sheppard Cabanne, Sr., and his wife, the parents of the child whom defendant is charged with feloniously enticing away. The mother of this child, Minnie Leonard Cabanne, deserted her husband on July 16, 1906, and took the child with her to New York, and for several months concealed its whereabouts from the father. She claims to have obtained a divorce from her husband (Cabanne) in the British West Indies in December, 1906, and shortly thereafter married the defendant, who is a newspaper reporter, and appears to have a good standing among the members of that profession. She lived with defendant as his wife in New York until the month of December, 1908, when, the defendant being either in jail or a fugitive from justice, she was greatly distressed financially, and applied to the father to come and get his child and take care of it. Cabanne, Sr., went to New York, secured possession of his child, and placed it in the home of his mother, Julia C. Cabanne, of St. Louis, where he was living. The mother of the child claims that he promised to return it to her in the following spring, if she had a home and was able to take care of it; that he would keep her informed of the child's health and condition; that he would read to it such letters as she might write, and not commit it into the sole custody of Julia C. Cabanne, the child's grandmother. Cabanne, Sr., the father, denies these promises; but his testimony on that point is so evasive as to leave the impression that he made the promises, and the fact that he failed to write her about the child, and in January, 1909, instituted a suit for divorce against the mother, praying to be awarded the sole custody of the child, indicates that he did not intend to keep his promises. The mother received notice of the suit, but the action did not culminate in a divorce to Cabanne, Sr., and award to him of the custody of the child until May 3, 1909 (after the alleged crime was committed). On April 16, 1909, the defendant, at the request of the mother of James Sheppard Cabanne, Jr., came to St. Louis and decoyed the child away from its father, who was away from home, by telling it that he was going to take it to its mother; but, instead of doing so, he took it to San Francisco, Cal., where he claims its moth...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Elliott
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • November 3, 1930
  • State v. Stocksdale
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • December 11, 1975
    ...immunity from prosecution is personal to the parent, and one who assists the parent is guilty of the offense. State v. Brandenburg, 232 Mo. 531, 134 S.W. 529, 530 (Sup.Ct.1911); Wilborn v. Superior Court of Humboldt County, 51 Cal.2d 828, 337 P.2d 65 There are frequently mitigating circumst......
  • State v. Edmiston, J
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • November 5, 1979
    ...which have held agents guilty of kidnapping while exempting the parent at whose instance the taking occurred. State v. Brandenburg, 232 Mo. 531, 134 S.W. 529, 530 (1911); Wilborn v. Superior Court of Humboldt County, 51 Cal.2d 828, 337 P.2d 65, 66 (1959). The distinction rests on the presum......
  • Hicks v. State
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • December 24, 1928
    ...the act is not kidnapping. Hunt v. Hunt, 94 Ga. 257, 21 S. E. 515; Burns v. Com., 129 Pa. 138, 18 A. 756; State v. Brandenberg, 232 Mo. 531, 134 S. W. 529, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 845. See, also, State v. Dewey, 155 Iowa, 469, 136 N. W. 533, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) Parents, as did these, sometimes ......
  • 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