Stevens v. People

• Decision Date: 11 October 1895
• Citation: 158 Ill. 111,41 N.E. 856
• Parties: STEVENS v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

158 Ill. 111

41 N.E. 856

STEVENS

v.PEOPLE.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 11, 1895.

Error to circuit court, Rock Island county; Arthur A. Smith, Judge.

Indictment of William E. Stevens for assault with intent to commit rape. Defendant was convicted, and he brings error. Reversed.William Jackson and J. M. Bearsley, for plaintiff in error.

M. T. Moloney, Atty. Gen., for the People.

This is an indictment against plaintiff in error for assault with intent to commit rape upon one Philomena Berkins. The jury, upon the trial of the case, returned a verdict of guilty, and fixed the punishment at one year in the penitentiary. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled, and judgment was rendered upon the verdict. This writ of error is sued out for the purpose of reviewing such judgment. A motion was made before this court by plaintiff in error at the October term, 1894, that the writ of error be made a supersedeas. This motion was granted at that time, and plaintiff in error was then admitted to bail pending the consideration of the case here.

The offense is alleged to have been committed in Moline on Tuesday, the 22d day of August, 1893. The plaintiff in error is a man of family, 54 years of age, and for 14 years prior to his conviction was engaged in the real-estate and insurance business at Moline. The prosecutrix is a married woman, the wife of one Martin Berkins. She is more than 35 years old, and came to this country from Belgium on April 27, 1893. She had lived at Ghent, in Belgium, and was there divorced from her first husband. She married her present husband, Martin Berkins, in Rock Island, on June 6, 1893. She says that she had known Berkins 10 years, and came to America to marry him. Berkins was also a Belgian, born in 1861, and had lived in this country about two years at the time of the trial. The prosecutrix admits that she kept a saloon in Ghent alongside of a house of ill fame; that she was 25 years old when she first kept a saloon, and, the last time she kept it, kept it 14 months, and 5 years before that kept a saloon, in connection with a lodging house; and that she had no other business in Ghent besides keeping a saloon and lodging house. A witness named John Deeling, at whose house the prosecutrix stopped when she first came to Moline, and for whom she acted as cook for a short time, swears that he knew her in Belgium, and that her general reputation there, in the neighborhood where she lived, for truth and veracity and for virtue and chastity, was bad; that she was talked of in the saloons in Ghent as a bad woman, and as the keeper of a house of ill fame; and that since coming to this country she had told him that she ran a house of ill fame in Ghent, and had kept a saloon in connection therewith, making her living thereby. Two other witnesses swear that the prosecutrix had stated to them that she had kept a house of ill fame in Ghent, Belgium, before she came to this country. Two witnesses produced by the prosecution swore that they had known her as a saloon keeper in Belgium, and had been in her saloon there, and that she did not keep a house of ill fame there, and that her reputation for chastity was good. One witness for the prosecution, who had known her here for something more than a year, but had no other acquaintance with her than to pass the salutations of the day, swears that her general reputation for truth and veracity was good.

The proof shows that the prosecutrix and plaintiff in error had met only three or four times before the alleged assault was committed. As to the first time she saw him, she says that she was at the house of a neighbor, named Braum, sitting on the porch, peeling apples, and Stevens was ‘alongside of her,’ on his knees; that he took hold of her breasts, and sat down, and put his hand under her clothes upon her leg, and she gave him a slap, and he ‘got up’ and went away, and made a motion to her with his hands, indicating that he would pay her money, but that she continued to sit there, and said nothing to her husband about it, because she was afraid; and that all this occurred about five minutes after she saw him for the first time. The date of this first meeting was Thursday, August 17, 1893. As to what then occurred plaintiff in error says that he came into Braum's yard, and saw her sitting on the steps; that she addressed him by name, and appeared to know him, and spoke to him as if she was intimately acquainted with him; that her appearance indicated that she was not a pure woman; that he sat down on the porch because there was no other place to sit, and was close enough to push her without getting up; that he only remained there a minute or two; that Mrs. Braum's little girl was sitting on the porch, and Mrs. Braum was passing to and fro; that he merely brushed her on the thigh with his hand, outside her clothes, and the only thing she did was to shake her head, having a knife in one hand and the apple dish in her lap. Plaintiff in error was again at the house of Braum, who had been doing some work for him, on Sunday, August 20th. Prosecutrix and her husband were there at the time, drinking coffee. He remained but a few moments, and nothing passed between them. She says that on the next day, Monday, August 21st, about half past 12 o'clock, Stevens came to her house, to get her husband to do some work upon a well near Braum's house; that her husband was eating his dinner; that Stevens made lewd motions to her behind her husband's back, and showed her money; that she was busy undressing herself, and Stevens went after her in another room, and asked her if she wanted money; that he then went away, and her husband went to work; that about 2 o'clock in the afternoon Stevens came back to the back door; that she was in the kitchen, and saw him coming, and thought she heard him knock, and jumped through the window, and ran to one of the neighbors, and saw him no more that day. Two witnesses swear that in giving an account of this day's transactions the prosecuting witness spoke of having gone into a room and got a revolver, but she says that she said nothing about a revolver. The plaintiff in error says that he has no recollection of being at the house of the prosecuting witness but once on Monday; that he went there to get Berkins to help a man who was digging a well, as Berkins had told him the day before, at Braum's house, that he wanted work; that he knocked, and was invited in, and found Berkins and his wife in the kitchen; that she motioned to her husband to go into the sitting room, which he did; that he sat down to the table to eat his dinner, saying that he would go to the well as soon as he finished his meal; that when he finished he went into another room, and closed the door after him; that the prosecutrix motioned with her hand to the door of the room where her husband had gone, and said to plaintiff in error in broken English, ‘You come to-morrow.’ The next meeting took place on Tuesday morning, August 22d, at her house, at which time the assault is alleged to have been made. She swears that on that day Stevens came to her house about 8 o'clock in the morning, while her husband was working for him near Braum's; that he did not knock; that there was a mosquito door in front, which was open; that the bedroom window was open (there was a dwelling on one side of the house, 52 feet distant, and another on the other side, 90 feet distant); that Stevens asked if her husband was at work, and she said, ‘Yes'; that he then came in, and closed the door; that she was sitting in a rocking chair, knitting stockings, and there was a low kitchen chair in front of her, on which her foot rested; that he began to talk to her, and sat down upon the chair in front of her; that she said nothing, but was busy fixing her stockings; that he put his hand under her clothes, and she slapped him on the fingers; that he then began taking liberties with her again; that she said it was warm, and rose up to open the door; that he then put one hand under her chin and one under her clothes, and held her; that the rocking chair tipped over, and broke the hinge on the buttery door; that he threw her over the chair; that she scratched him, and as soon as she scratched him he let her loose; that after she was loose she took the poker and struck him, and he commenced to cry, and said, ‘Forgive me’; that his hat fell in the water, and he took it and ran away; that she ran over to one of the neighbors, and showed her with a stick how she had struck him; that she went to her husband, and told him what Stevens had done. Upon her original account of the transaction she made no statement that the plaintiff in error exposed his person to her, but at a subsequent telling she swore that such was the fact. She made no outcry. The plaintiff in error testifies, in regard to the occurrences of Tuesday, that he went to the house of the prosecutrix on that morning about 9 o'clock, and knocked; that she said to him ‘Come in’; that she was mending stockings, and motioned to him to take the chair in front of her, saying, ‘Take a chair’; that her chair was by the window, and the back of his was against the wall; that he did put his hand under her clothes, upon her thigh; that she sat there, and he took his hand away, and sat back in his chair; that she then raised both her hands, and scratched and tore his face, and swore at him, and said she would make him pay, and motioned to him to leave; that he left as soon as he could; that she did not strike him with a poker, or any other weapon; that he did not expose his person to her in any way, nor put his hand on her throat; that when he went out of the house she went out and picked up a piece of kindling wood, and made a motion as if to throw it at him; that he got into his buggy, and went to the place where her husband was working; that after a little while she came there, and she and her husband went to Braum's...