State v. Young

Decision Date21 December 1889
Citation12 S.W. 642,99 Mo. 284
PartiesSTATE v. YOUNG.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Dent county; C. C. BLAND, Judge.

L. B. Woodside, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.

BLACK, J.

Defendant was indicted, under section 1260, Rev. St., for defiling Eliza A. Smith. He was convicted, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100, and imprisonment in the county jail for 24 hours. The evidence shows that a sister of the defendant's wife engaged Eliza A. Smith in December, 1883, to go to defendant's house to do kitchen work. The defendant's wife was then sick, and Eliza remained in the employ of the defendant, in the capacity of a kitchen girl, from that date until January or February, 1885. She was 16 years old when she went to live at defendant's house. Mr. Smith, the father of the girl, testified that a few weeks after she went to the defendant's house he saw defendant, and asked him how Eliza was getting along, and he said, "All right." He says: "I told him she was not strong, and I did not want her to work very hard. He said her work was light. About two or three weeks after this I spoke to him again, and told him I wanted him to see that Eliza did not work too hard, and that I did not want him to let her go out at night, except to church. He said all right, she would be treated just like one of the family." The evidence of the girl is to the effect that defendant gave her some money and presents at different times, and flirted with her until May, 1884, without anything wrong being done. That one night in that month he put his arm around her, and they then had sexual intercourse, which act was repeated in about a week thereafter. After that they had like intercourse two or three times a week, — sometimes in the dwelling-house, sometimes in the hen-house, and often out in a woods pasture. There is other evidence tending to corroborate her statements in some respects. The defendant testified that he never had any intercourse with Eliza; that her father never spoke to him about her; that she was hired at his house to do kitchen work, and he never had, or assumed to have, any control over her. He denied the statements of Eliza, and says he never had the alleged conversations with her father. The court, at the request of the state, instructed the jury as follows: "(1) The court instructs the jury that it is not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant had the legal custody and control of the person of Eliza Smith, but if they find from the evidence that she was in his employ, and that her father committed her to defendant's especial care, with the expectation and understanding that defendant would use a supervisory control over her, and that while she was so committed to defendant's care, and when she was under eighteen years of age, he debauched her by having carnal intercourse with her, they should find him guilty, and it makes no difference how readily or how often she consented to have sexual intercourse with the defendant," — and the court, of its own motion, told the jury "that the mere fact that Eliza Smith was employed by the defendant as his hired servant, and that while so employed she was defiled by him, does not authorize his conviction;" but refused, at the request of the defendant, to say that to find defendant guilty it must appear "that the defendant was at the time her lawful guardian, or occupied a relation similar to a guardian to her, in which a peculiar and confidential trust was reposed." The statute is in these words: "If any guardian of any female under the age of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Nibarger
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 17, 1914
    ...for the purpose of affecting her credibility as a witness. This may be done. State v. Terry, 106 Mo. 209, 17 S. W. 288; State v. Young, 99 Mo. 284, 12 S. W. 642; State v. Summar, supra; State v. Sibley, supra. The rule in the matter of reputation for chastity of prosecutrix is succinctly st......
  • State v. Nibarger
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 17, 1914
    ...of the care and custody of prosecutrix by defendant, and was a correct declaration of the law applicable to the facts in the case. State v. Young, 99 Mo. 284; State Strattman, 100 Mo. 540; State v. Skillman, 228 Mo. 434; State v. Terry, 106 Mo. 209; State v. Hesterly, 182 Mo. 26; State v. O......
  • State v. Kavanaugh
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1896
    ...55 Mo. 90, is not an authority in this case. Since the delivery of the opinion in the Arnold case the statute has been amended and State v. Young, 99 Mo. 284, has been rendered virtually overrules the Arnold case. (2) Admission of testimony that appellant administered medicines to the child......
  • The State v. Summar
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1898
    ... ... serve before the court can call in a judge of another ... circuit. Acts 1895, p. 164, sec. 4178. (3) The ... defendant's instruction in the nature of a demurrer to ... the evidence, at the conclusion of the evidence, should have ... been given. State v. Arnold, 55 Mo. 90; State v ... Young, 99 Mo. 288. (4) Instruction number 9 given by the ... court is not the law, and has been repeatedly condemned by ... this court. State v. Austin, 113 Mo. 543; State ... v. Hobbs, 117 Mo. 621. (5) The defendant should have ... been permitted to prove the general bad character of the ... ...
  • 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