State v. M'Crum

• Decision Date: 30 January 1888
• Citation: 38 Minn. 154
• Parties: STATE OF MINNESOTA <I>vs.</I> GEORGE McCRUM.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

38 Minn. 154

STATE OF MINNESOTAvs.

GEORGE McCRUM.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 30, 1888.

The defendant was tried and convicted in the district court for Hennepin county, before Young, J., and a jury, on an indictment for abduction, and appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

Thos. J. Leftwich, for appellant.

Moses E. Clapp, Attorney General, and Frank F. Davis, for the State.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

Defendant was indicted under subdivision 2, section 240, Penal Code, which reads: "A person who * * * inveigles or entices an unmarried female under the age of twenty-five (25) years, of previous chaste character, into a house of ill fame, or of assignation, or elsewhere, for the purpose of prostitution or sexual intercourse, * * * is guilty of abduction." The indictment alleges that he did inveigle and entice the female named into a certain dwelling-house, for the purpose of there and then having sexual intercourse with her, but fails to allege, and the evidence did not show, that the house was a house of ill fame, or of assignation, or a house of a similar character; so that the question occurs, must the place into which the female is inveigled or enticed, for the purpose specified, be similar in character, or the purposes for which it is used, to a house of ill fame or of assignation, or is the offence committed by inveigling or enticing the female to any place without regard to its character, if done with the specified purpose? As bearing on the construction of the subdivision in this particular, we may refer to subdivision 1, which makes it an offence to take a female under the age of 16 years for the purpose of prostitution or sexual intercourse, without regard to the place or its character, so that, no matter where such a female is taken for such a purpose, it is a crime. Now, unless the word "elsewhere," used in subdivision 2, is to be construed to mean some place similar in character to a house of ill fame or of assignation, then the subdivision is really a repetition of subdivision 1, merely extending its provisions so as to include females up to the age of 25. No reason can be suggested for such a repetition; and a good reason is apparent why females under the age of 16 should be guarded by a more rigorous provision than those of maturer years.

Again, the words "house of ill fame or of assignation" are entirely superfluous if they are not used to indicate, to some extent, to what kind of place the female must be inveigled or enticed....