State v. Jeffries

• Decision Date: 30 January 1906
• Citation: 117 Mo. App. 569,92 S.W. 501
• Parties: STATE v. JEFFRIES.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

92 S.W. 501

117 Mo. App. 569

STATE v.JEFFRIES.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 30, 1906.

1. HUSBAND AND WIFE — WIFE ABANDONMENT — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

Evidence held sufficient to warrant a conviction of wife abandonment.

2. SAME — EVIDENCE — CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING MARRIAGE.

Since Rev. St. 1899, § 1844, creating the offense of seduction under promise of marriage, provides that the marriage of defendant to the woman seduced before judgment upon indictment shall be a bar to any future prosecution, it is competent to show, in a prosecution for wife abandonment, that defendant was at the time of his marriage under indictment for the seduction of his future wife, and that the court dismissed the prosecution on the fact of the marriage being made known to it.

3. CRIMINAL LAW — APPEAL — ERRORS REVIEWABLE.

An objection to closing argument of the prosecuting attorney cannot be considered on appeal, in the absence of a ruling on the objection adverse to defendant.

4. SAME — MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL — DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURT — IMPEACHING EVIDENCE.

In a prosecution for wife abandonment, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to overrule a motion for a new trial, based on affidavits of defendant impeaching the evidence of prosecutrix, where the affidavits and counter affidavits taken together showed that defendant had prosecutrix under his influence, that she was anxious for a resumption of matrimonial relations, that under a fraudulent promise to live with her defendant induced her to write a letter impeaching some of her evidence, and that she, when confronted with the letter, disclosed the scheme concocted by defendant and reasserted the truthfulness of her evidence.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Webster County; Argus Cox, Judge.

George Jeffries was convicted of wife abandonment, and appeals.Affirmed.

Dickey & McDowell, for appellant.J. P. Smith and M. Selph, for the State.

BLAND, P. J.

At the October term, 1901, of the Webster circuit court, the defendant was convicted on an information charging him with wife abandonment.The jury found him guilty, but was unable to agree upon the punishment, and the court assessed his punishment at a fine of $100.A motion for new trial was filed and overruled.Defendant duly appealed from the judgment.

No abstract of the record, no statement of the errors complained of, nor brief has been filed by either party.The case is here on a full transcript, from which it appears that at the March term, 1901, of the circuit court of Webster county, the grand jury presented an indictment against the defendant, charging that on April 12, 1900, at the county of Webster, under a promise of marriage made to Sarelda Moore, he unlawfully and feloniously seduced the said Sarelda, an unmarried female under 21 years of age and of good repute.Pending this indictment, the defendant and the said Sarelda were married, on August 12, 1901.The fact of the marriage was made known to the judge of the court, who, at the September term, 1901, dismissed the prosecution for seduction for the reason the defendant had married the prosecuting witness.It appears that the defendant was under 21 years of age and that Sarelda had a child by him, born prior to the marriage.Defendant had no home of his own, or the means of acquiring one, or the means to procure the necessary furniture to go to housekeeping, so on the day of his marriage he took his wife to his brother-in-law's, with whom he had raised a farm crop.

The evidence of the prosecuting witness is, in substance, that after defendant took her to his brother-in-law's, he was absent most of the time, spending his time at his father's and in the city of Springfield, making promises, however, from time to time, that he would go to housekeeping, but made no preparation or effort to set up a home, and finally, about six weeks after the marriage, said to his wife: "I am free and my bondsmen are...