State v. Feasel

• Decision Date: 31 October 1881
• Citation: 74 Mo. 524
• Parties: THE STATE v. FEASEL, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

74 Mo. 524

THE STATE

v.FEASEL, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1881.

Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court.--HON. H. S. KELLEY, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Chas. F. Booher for appellant, cited Burr. Law Dic., 338; Shelford Marr. and Div., 10; Taylor Civil Law, 210; Slocum v. People, 90 Ill. 274.

D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.

NORTON, J.

The defendant was indicted in the Andrew county circuit court at its April term, 1881, under section 1257, Revised Statutes, for taking away a female under the age of eighteen years from her father for the purpose of concubinage. He was put upon his trial at the August term of said court, convicted of the offense charged, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. The cause is here upon his appeal, and the chief ground of error assigned is that the court gave improper and refused to give proper instructions.

The section of the statute upon which the indictment is based, is as follows: “Every person who shall take away any female under the age of eighteen years, from her father, mother, guardian, or other person having the legal charge of her person, either for the purpose of prostitution or concubinage, and any father, mother, guardian, or other person having the legal charge of her person who shall consent to the same, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding five years.” The court, after properly defining what was a taking away of a female under the statute, gave an instruction on behalf of the State to the effect, that if the jury believed from the evidence that defendant did take away from her father Belle Murray, a female under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of concubinage, that is, for the purpose of cohabiting with her as man and woman in sexual intercourse for any length of time, even for a single night, without the authority of a legal marriage, they would find him guilty, although they might believe that defendant was pursued and overtaken and thereby prevented from accomplishing the alleged act of concubinage with the said Belle Murray.

This instruction, it is insisted by counsel, is erroneous, because the word ““concubinage,” as he contends, means something more than an indulgence in one single act of sexual intercourse or cohabitation with another for the period of one single night only; that to make the offense under the statute complete, the evidence must show that it was defendant's purpose in taking...