State v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 11 June 1900
• Citation: 46 A. 764,65 N.J.L. 105
• Parties: STATE v. JACKSON et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

46 A. 764

65 N.J.L. 105

STATE

v. JACKSON et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 11, 1900.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to court of quarter sessions, Monmouth county.

Emma W. Jackson and Frederick Klnsinger were convicted of assault, and bring error. Affirmed as to Kinsinger, and reversed as to Jackson.

Argued February term, 1900, before DEPUE,. C. J., and VAN SYCKEL and GUMMERE, JJ.

Aaron E. Johnston, for plaintiffs in error. Wilbur A. Heisley, for the State.

GUMMERE, J.The plaintiffs in error were jointly indicted under section 115 of the crimes act (P. L. 1898, p. 826), which makes it a high misdemeanor for any person of the age of 10 years or over to unlawfully or carnally abuse a woman under the age of 16, either with or without her consent. The indictment contained a single count, and charged that "on the 31st day of March, in the year 1899, at the township of," etc., "the said Emma W. Jackson and Frederick Kinsinger then and there, each being of the age of sixteen years and over, did unlawfully and carnally abuse one Minnie P., then and there being a woman under the age of sixteen years." To support the indictment the state proved that Minnie P. was under 16 years of age; that the Jackson woman had acted as a procuress for Kinsinger in persuading this girl to submit herself to his embraces, at the time and place set out in the indictment; and that she provided a room for them in which to indulge in sexual intercourse. It further appeared that after Kinsinger and the girl had retired to the room so provided for them he placed his hand upon her person against her protest, and urged her to yield to his wishes, but that she refused to do so, and that there was in fact no carnal abuse of the girl by him. For the defense it was proved that Kinsinger was less than 16 years old at the time of the above-mentioned occurrences. Upon the facts proved the court charged the jury that, owing to the fact that Kinsinger was less than 16 years of age, there could be no conviction of the defendants of the statutory offense; but that, as carnal abuse under this statute necessarily included an assault and battery, they might convict the defendant of the latter offense, if they believed that Kinsinger had placed his hand upon the person of the girl without her consent and against her protest. The Jury found both of the defendants guilty of assault and battery, and the question which this writ of error presents is whether a conviction of that offense can...