State v. Long

Decision Date02 April 1914
Citation257 Mo. 199,165 S.W. 748
PartiesSTATE v. LONG.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

John W. Stokes, of Craig, and Cook, Cummins & Dawson, of Maryville, for appellant. Elliott W. Major, Atty. Gen., John M. Dawson, Asst. Atty. Gen., John T. Barker, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Higgs, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

GRAVES, J.

Defendant stands charged with the crime of seduction under promise to marry, the information being based on section 4478, R. S. 1909. The scene of the alleged crime is located in Atchison county by such information, and the case was first tried in that county and defendant convicted. State v. Long, 238 Mo. 383, 141 S. W. 1099. The judgment of conviction was reversed and the cause remanded, for reasons fully stated by Blair, C., in the case, supra. When the case again reached the circuit court of Atchison county, Judge Ellison, the judge of that court, disqualified himself, and Judge Francis H. Trimble was called in to try the same. Application was made by defendant for a change of venue, and, upon a hearing thereof, Judge Trimble sustained the same and sent the cause to Nodaway county, in which court a trial was had, and defendant again found guilty. By the verdict his punishment was fixed at six months' imprisonment in the county jail, and a fine of $500, and from a judgment upon that verdict the defendant has again appealed to this court. In division No. 2, an opinion was handed down affirming such judgment, but a motion for a rehearing was filed by the defendant, which motion was sustained, and the cause transferred from that court to this court.

The pertinent facts, in abbreviated form, are about as follows: At the date of the alleged offense, the prosecutrix, Carrie Margaret Miles, was practically 19 years of age, and lived on a farm with her parents in Atchison county. The defendant at the same date was about 23 years old, and lived on a farm, with his parents, in Holt county, but only four miles distant from the farm of Miles. The prosecutrix and the defendant had been acquainted in a casual way for some years prior to August 22, 1909, the date fixed as the time of the seduction. From June to October, 1907, the defendant seemingly paid some attention to the prosecutrix, and during this period visited her upon several Sundays, taking her to church and other public gatherings. During this time the prosecutrix claims no ungentlemanly conduct upon the part of the defendant. She says, however, that twice he proposed marriage, and twice she rejected him, that she told him her folks said she was too young to marry, and that they agreed to quit company for a while, but with a tacit understanding that his attentions would be renewed latter. These things the defendant denies. In October, 1907, defendant's attentions to prosecutrix ceased, and each went their own way for the months between that date and a short time before the date of the alleged offense. During these months, October, 1907, to August, 1909, nothing passed between the parties, except several unimportant post cards sent by the defendant. They met occasionally at public places, and talked upon commonplace subjects. Prosecutrix during this time kept company with other young men, and corresponded with them, among them a Mr. Lee, and also a young man who lived at their home. August 15, 1909, defendant, his two sisters, and a young man named Miles, were at church, and were invited by Carrie Miles to her home for dinner. The invitation was accepted, and later in the day (about 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening) they all went over to the defendant's home. Carrie Miles was escorted over there by Mr. Lee, who had called up by phone, and engaged her company, whilst defendant and the others mentioned were there. Young Lee took her home from Long's place. Up to this point there was nothing wrong between these two parties. Miss Miles says that on the 15th of August defendant engaged her company for the next Sunday, August 22d. Defendant says that she asked him over to take her to church, and he told her he didn't know about it, but would write. The record shows he did write her, telling he would be over to take her to church, and he went over according to the terms of the letter. He drove her to church, a distance of five miles, without incident worthy of relation. After the services the two, in the buggy, started for her home. The church was in Holt county, and the county line was much nearer her home than the church. She says that about the time they reached the county line between Atchison and Holt counties (her home being in Atchison) he rather fervently proposed marriage to her, and though not exactly at first, but she shortly consented. Immediately following he proposed illicit intercourse, and with but little hesitation (speaking from the record) to this she consented. True it is she says that he promised to marry her the next Wednesday, and urged that no harm could come of the intercourse.

According to the story of prosecutrix she prepared to go to town with him Wednesday to get married, but defendant, although duly waited for, came not. The whole transaction of becoming engaged and having intercourse covered a very short time. Counsel for defendant figure it out to be 30 minutes. The parents were not advised of the proposed marriage on the Wednesday named. Nor did the prosecutrix take any steps to find out why defendant had not kept his word. She says that they had agreed to keep the marriage matter a secret until he could rent a certain farm in the neighborhood. She says that defendant came back the next Sunday August 29th, but this is denied by defendant; he says that he was not there again until September 5th. According to the prosecutrix he came to her home on Sunday August 29th and took her to church. That he explained his failure to keep the marriage date, by saying that he had not rented the farm as yet. She says that on the trip home from church the promise of marriage was again renewed, and intercourse followed the renewed promise, with a little more alacrity than upon the previous occasion. The next Wednesday was fixed for the marriage, but she again waited in vain for defendant. At no time were the parents advised of any promise to marry, until September 9th when the mother (on a wash day) made discoveries to the effect that all was not well with the girl, and asked her to explain, and then she told of the alleged marriage engagement and the intercourse. Prosecutrix made no effort to find out why defendant had for a second time made default, but on September 12th, three days after her disclosure to her parents, she did write the following rather informal letter: "Fairfax, Mo. September 12, 1909. Dear Friend: I will take the pleasure of writing to you this evening. How have you been getting along these days. Olive what fine time did you have at Fairfax Thursday. We went up Friday, but thought it was dull. Olive, can you come and take me to Craig one day, wed. or thurs. Papa is going for cattle and the boy's in going to school and Harry is going to take his company. So that way, I...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • Meierotto v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 10, 1947
    ...was the first one that brought the issue into the case. 70 C.J. 1164-1165; State v. Wood, 321 Mo. 540, 11 S.W. (2d) 1040; State v. Long, 257 Mo. 199, 165 S.W. 748; State v. King, 342 Mo. 975, 119 S.W. (2d) 277; Stoebier v. St. Louis Transit Co., 203 Mo. 702, 102 S.W. 651; State v. Murray, 3......
  • State v. Carter
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1982
    ... ... 705, 203 S.W.2d 425, 429 (1947); State v. Cochran, 356 Mo. 778, 203 S.W.2d 707, 711 (banc 1947); State v. Swinburne, 324 S.W.2d 746, 750-751 (Mo. banc 1959); State v. Speedy, 543 S.W.2d 251, 256 (Mo.App.1976); State ex rel. Husgen v. Stussie, 617 S.W.2d 414, 416 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Long, 257 Mo. 199, 165 S.W. 748, 753 (banc 1914); State v. Lewisohn, 379 A.2d 1192, 1211 (Me.1977). "Appellant could not be permitted to call as witnesses only those doctors whom he desired to call, and then claim the right to object as to other doctors who treated and examined him for the same ... ...
  • State v. Sapp
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1947
    ... ... Taylor, Attorney General, and Frank W. Hayes, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent ...         (1) The court did not err in failing to quash the amended information on the ground that the appellant was not accorded a second preliminary hearing. State v. Long, 22 S.W. (2d) 809. (2) The court did not err in overruling appellant's motion to suppress the evidence of Doctors Ault, Thomas and Price: Ryan v. Met. Ins. Co., 30 S.W. (2d) 190; Smart v. Kansas City, 208 Mo. 162; State v. Long, 257 Mo. 199; Wells v. City of Jefferson, 132 S.W. (2d) 1006. (3) ... ...
  • State v. Sapp
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1947
    ... ... Hayes , Assistant Attorney General, for respondent ...          (1) The ... court did not err in failing to quash the amended information ... on the ground that the appellant was not accorded a second ... preliminary hearing. State v. Long, 22 S.W.2d 809 ... (2) The court did not err in overruling appellant's ... motion to suppress the evidence of Doctors Ault, Thomas and ... Price: Ryan v. Met. Ins. Co., 30 S.W.2d 190; ... Smart v. Kansas City, 208 Mo. 162; State v ... Long, 257 Mo. 199; Wells v. City of Jefferson, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT