State v. Lenihan

• Decision Date: 03 October 1893
• Citation: 56 N.W. 292,88 Iowa 670
• Parties: STATE v. LENIHAN.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

88 Iowa 670

56 N.W. 292

STATE

v.LENIHAN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 3, 1893.

Appeal from district court, Cass county; N. W. Macy, Judge.

The defendant was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced for seducing one Bridget Dunley, who is alleged to have been an unmarried woman, of previously chaste character. The defendant appeals.James E. Bruce and Williard & Williard, for appellant.

John Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., Sayles & Hinkson, and Thos. A. Cheshire, for the State.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. The case is presented to this court on quite a voluminous record. There are multitudes of objections and exceptions to the rulings of the court. Scores of these exceptions were evidently taken “out of abundant caution of counsel,” as it is sometimes expressed, and without expectation that they will receive serious consideration in this court. We will pass many of the questions made without further mention, and proceed to consider such as we think demand the attention of this court. It is claimed that the defendant seduced the plaintiff by a promise of marriage. Much of the argument of counsel for defendant is addressed to the point that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. We need not set out the evidence in detail. Much of the argument in reference thereto might well be addressed to a jury. It is enough to say here that, although it is true the prosecuting witness was more than 30 years old when she claims that she was seduced, there is nothing in the record to warrant the assertion of counsel for appellant that the defendant was an unsophisticated and susceptible boy. It does not appear that he was even a novice in the matter of associating with young women. He was of sufficient age to carry on a harness shop, and his love letters--written to the prosecuting witness, in which he addressed her as “Dear Bid,” “Darling Bid,” and used such expressions as that “I am dead to see you,” and “It does me lots of good to hear from your own dear self,” and “I am well, but very lonesome after you. A big, ilegant kiss from your solid boy.”--these letters, with other admissions made by the defendant, were abundantly sufficient to authorize a finding by the jury that the testimony of the prosecuting witness that there was a marriage contract was corroborated as required by statute. It is true that the defendant, in his testimony as a witness, denied that there was at any time any marriage engagement; and the defense was really placed upon the ground that there was no seduction, but that the prosecuting witness, by her attention to the defendant, in effect, invited sexual intercourse between the parties.

We come now to the first question which appears to us to demand consideration. During the examination of the prosecuting witness, she was asked the question if, at any time prior to the sexual intercourse between her and the defendant, she had made any preparation for her marriage with the defendant. She was allowed to answer this question, over the defendant's objection, as follows: “Yes, sir; I bought a dress in Omaha...