State v. Brow.
| Decision Date | 19 July 1888 |
| Citation | 15 A. 216,64 N.H. 577 |
| Parties | STATE v. BROW. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Sullivan county.
Indictment upon Gen. Laws, c. 274, § 10, for willfully and deceitfully enticing away a female child under the age of 18 years, with the intent and for the purpose of prostitution. The evidence for the government tended to show that the respondent enticed the person named in the indictment, a girl of the age of 16 years, from her home, in Newport, in Sullivan county, and unlawfully cohabited with her as his wife, under assumed names, at several places in Massachusetts, for five or six days. The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that if he only intended to obtain the girl for his own carnal enjoyment the act did not amount to her prostitution in the sense of the law; that the term "prostitution," as used in the statute, means common, indiscriminate, illicit intercourse, and not sexual intercourse confined exclusively to one man. The court declined to give the instructions requested, and instructed the jury that if the girl was enticed away by the respondent with the intent and for the purpose of maintaining and continuing unlawful sexual relations with her, for an indefinite period, and living with her in a condition of concubinage or criminal cohabitation, she was enticed away for purposes of prostitution, within the meaning of the statute. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the respondent was sentenced to the state prison, and committed. The respondent excepted to the refusal to give the instructions requested, and to the instructions given, and filed this bill of exceptions, which was allowed.
H. W. Parker and Davis & Enright, for defendant. T. L. Bowers and the Attorney General, for the State.
The defendant's purpose of keeping the girl as his mistress was not "the purpose of prostitution" within the meaning of Gen. Laws, c. 274, § 10. Exceptions sustained.
CLARK, J., did not sit. The others concurred.
1 Reported by W. S. Ladd, official reporter of the New Hampshire supreme court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gardner
...v. State, 102 Ind. 156, 1 N. E. 372;Osborn v. State, 52 Ind. 526, 528;Miller v. State, 121 Ind. 294, 23 N. E. 94, 95;State v. Brow, 64 N. H. 577, 15 Atl. 216, 217;Carpenter v. People, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 603, 610;State v. Toombs, 79 Iowa, 741, 45 N. W. 300;State v. Ruhl, 8 Iowa, 447, 453;Common......
-
State v. Gardner
... ... v. State , (Ala.) 98 Ala. 61, 13 So. 325; State v ... Goodwin , (Kans.) 33 Kan. 538, 6 P. 899, 901; ... Fahnestock v. State , (Ind.) 102 Ind. 156, 1 N.E ... 372; Osborn v. State , 52 Ind. 526, 528; Miller ... v. State , (Ind.) 121 Ind. 294, 23 N.E. 94, 95; State ... v. Brow , (N. H.) 64 N.H. 577, 15 A. 216, 217; ... Carpenter v. People , 8 Barb. (N.Y.) 603, 610; ... State v. Toombs , 79 Iowa 741, 45 N.W. 300; State ... v. Ruhl , 8 Iowa 447, 453; Commonwealth v. Cook , ... 53 Mass. 93, 97; People v. Demousset , (Cal.) 71 Cal ... 611, 12 P. 788, 789. It is ... ...
-
State v. Gibson
... ... will not support a charge of a taking away for the purpose of ... prostitution. Osborn v. State , 52 Ind. 526; Com ... v. Cook , 12 Met. 93; State v. Ruhl , 8 Iowa 447; ... State v. Stoyell , 54 Me. 24; Carpenter v ... People , 8 Barb. 603; State v. Brow , 64 N.H ... 577, 15 A. 216. These cases though directed against the ... offense of taking for the purpose of prostitution by ... parity of reasoning support the theory already advanced that ... a taking for sexual gratification does not fall within the ... prohibitions of the statute, ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Lavery
...v. People, 8 Barb. (N.Y.) 603; State v. Toombs, 79 Iowa, 741; State v. Ruhl, 8 Iowa, 447; People v. Demousset, 71 Cal. 611; State v. Brow, 64 N.H. 577; State Gibson, 111 Mo. 92; Krause v. Com., 93 Pa. 418; Com. v. Byers, 45 Pa.Super. 37; Com. v. Barrett, 28 Pa.Super. 112; Com. v. Ruddle, 14......