State v. Gates

• Decision Date: 23 July 1880
• Citation: State v. Gates, 27 Minn. 52, 6 N. W. 404 (Minn. 1880)
• Parties: THE STATE OF MINNESOTA v GATES.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

27 Minn. 52

6 N.W. 404

THE STATE OF MINNESOTAvGATES.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed July 23, 1880.

Appeal from order and judgment of district court, Freeborn county.

John H. Lovely, for respondent.

M. J. Severance and J. H. Parker, for appellant.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

Indictment for seduction. After alleging the mutual promises of the parties to marry, the indictment states that defendant did, on the eleventh day of May, 1878, under said promise, “seduce and have illicit connection with her, the said -, and so promising to marry her, the said -, did carnally know the said -; she consenting and agreeing to such knowledge of her person in the belief that said promise would be kept, and she, the said -, being then an unmarried female, of chaste character, previous to the date of said promises, and of chaste character previous to the said eleventh day of May, A. D. 1878, and consented to said illicit and carnal connection only upon consideration of said promise of marriage, by reason whereof she was then and there seduced by said J. H. Gates, contrary,” etc. In no other part of the indictment is the unmarried condition and the chaste character of the woman stated; and the question is, are they sufficiently stated to show a criminal offence?

As to her unmarried condition, we think, though it is not free from question, that it is sufficiently stated; for in the words “being then,” immediately following the statement of the act of illicit connection, and immediately preceding the words “an unmarried woman,” the word “then” must grammatically be held to refer to the time of such act, and not to the time of the promises or the date afterwards referred to. But such word “then” does not relate to nor qualify the words “of chaste character,” in the clause...