State v. Framness

• Decision Date: 19 June 1890
• Citation: 45 N.W. 1098,43 Minn. 490
• Parties: State of Minnesota v. Anton Johnson Framness
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

45 N.W. 1098

43 Minn. 490

State of Minnesota v. Anton Johnson Framness

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 19, 1890

Defendant was tried and convicted in the district court for Becker county, before Mills, J., on an indictment for seduction under promise of marriage, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $ 700, and, in default of payment, to be imprisoned at hard labor in the state prison until the fine should be paid, not exceeding 12 months. He appeals from the judgment and from an order refusing a new trial. The indictment, after charging defendant with seduction of the woman named therein under promise of marriage, describes her character as follows: "She the said" (naming her) "being at the time of said seduction and said act of sexual intercourse, an unmarried female of chaste character previous to said seduction and said act of sexual intercourse."

Judgment vacated, and the case remanded.

O. Mosness and C. M. Johnston, for appellant.

Moses E. Clapp, Attorney General, and Jeff. H. Irish, for the State.

OPINION

Vanderburgh, J.

1. The error first assigned is the insufficiency of the indictment in failing to state with sufficient precision that the prosecutrix was at the time of the alleged seduction "a female of previous chaste character." There is nothing in the point. The statement is evidently intended to be made precise with reference to an objection of this kind. The indictment conforms to the statute, and the intent is clearly to charge that the offence was committed with "an unmarried female of previous chaste character."

2. A slight error in entitling the case by the jury in the verdict returned in writing was immaterial and without prejudice. It was rendered in the case actually on trial. It was not necessary to entitle it, and the mistake was in the transposition of a single letter only, -- "Farmness" instead of "Framness."

3. The case is here upon a bill of exceptions which presents only the indictment, objection to evidence under it, the motion in arrest of judgment, the order denying a new trial, and the sentence. The appeal is from the order denying a new trial and from the judgment. The return does not purport to be a transcript of the record, of the minutes of the trial, or of any other proceedings in the trial court than we have mentioned. We may presume that the appellant caused so much of the record to be returned as was sent up, and as he deemed necessary for the purposes of the appeal, and if not complete, or if not in conformity with the truth, the omission might have been remedied, or the error corrected, upon a proper and seasonable application. As held in the case of State v. Brown, 41 Minn. 319, (43 N.W. 69,) there is nothing in the record in this court upon which to base the objection that the defendant was not arraigned or did not plead in the court below. It cannot be considered on this appeal. As to the practice in this court, see, further, State v. Ryan, 13 Minn. 343, (370;) State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 448, (538, 544;) State v. Conway, 23...