State v. Gates
| Decision Date | 23 July 1880 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MINNESOTA v GATES. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from order and judgment of district court, Freeborn county.
John H. Lovely, for respondent.
M. J. Severance and J. H. Parker, for appellant.
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 following the statement that the woman was an unmarried woman. The time of such chaste character is fixed by the words “previous to the date of such promises,” and “previous to the said eleventh day of May, A.D. 1878.” Under the statute this is not enough. The statute (section 6, c. 100, Gen. St. 1878) reads: “Any unmarried man who, under promise of marriage, or any married man, who seduces and has illicit connection with any unmarried female of previous chaste character, is guilty of a felony.”
The woman must have been, at the time of the act of seduction, of previous chaste character; that is, she must have been of chaste character immediately previous to the act. Such character must have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...the defendant. Kirby's Dig., §§ 2228, 2241, 2242 and 2243; 84 Ark. 477. A married man may be guilty of seduction. 48 Ga. 192; 34 Kan. 63; 27 Minn. 52. indictment is sufficient. 47 Conn. 319; 13 Ind. 565; 41 Minn. 41; 33 Miss. 387; 16 So. 264; 98 Ky. 708; 98 Mo. 368. OPINION FRAUENTHAL, J. T......
-
State v. Preuss
......Her testimony as to reformation must also be corroborated. State v. Timmens, 4 Minn. 325 (Gil. 241); State v. Gates, 27 Minn. 52, 6 N. W. 404;State v. Brinkhaus, 34 Minn. 285, 25 N. W. 642;State v. Wenz, 41 Minn. 196, 42 N. W. 933;State v. Keith, 47 Minn. 559, 50 N. W. 691;State v. Lockerby, 50 Minn. 363, 52 N. W. 958,36 Am. St. Rep. 656. The instructions of the trial court to the jury were ......
-
State v. Preuss
...the meaning of the statute. Her testimony as to reformation must also be corroborated. State v. Timmens, 4 Minn. 241 (325); State v. Gates, 27 Minn. 52, 6 N. W. 404; State v. Brinkhaus, 34 Minn. 285, 25 N. W. 642; State v. Wenz, 41 Minn. 196, 42 N. W. 933; State v. Keith, 47 Minn. 559, 50 N......
-
Seigneuret v. Fahey
...... previous to actual notice of defects invalidating the. same.". . . It is. sufficient for the purposes of this case to state that a. person is properly said to have color of title to lands when. he has an apparent though not real title to the same, founded. upon a deed ......