Suther v. State

Decision Date15 August 1898
Citation118 Ala. 88,24 So. 43
PartiesSUTHER v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from criminal court, Jefferson county; Samuel E. Greene Judge.

James Suther was convicted of seduction, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The evidence for the state tended to show that Jeannette Frail was a young woman about 17 years of age at the time of the alleged seduction, which was in January, 1897, living with her parents; that Suther introduced himself to her in May 1896, on the street, and began to pay her attentions from that time; that within three or four weeks afterwards he became engaged to marry her, and asked the consent of her parents in June, 1896, and continued to go to see her from one to three times a week until March 9, 1897, when the engagement was broken; that before she met Suther she had received the attentions of other young men, but Suther was the only one who paid her any attention during the period named. During the fall and winter of 1896 Suther gave her presents, consisting of rings, bracelets, dresses, hats gloves, and some other things, and told several persons including his sister and brother-in-law, that he intended marrying her. The prosecutrix, Jeannette Frail, as a witness for the state, testified that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her twice, the first time being in January 1897; that at such time she was engaged to be married to the defendant; that a short time after that he again had intercourse with her; and that in March, 1897, he quit coming to see her, and broke off their engagement, he asking her to return the ring he had given her. The mother of said Jeannette Frail also testified, as a witness for the state, to facts tending to corroborate her testimony as to the defendant having had sexual intercourse with said Jeannette. The evidence for the defendant tended to show unchastity on the part of Jeannette Frail. There were some witnesses introduced by the defendant who testified that they had had sexual intercourse with her. Mr. and Mrs. T. S. Kennedy, who were her neighbors, testified that they saw one Tom Poe go to the house of Jeannette one evening when her mother and father were away from home, and that he stayed there all night. The said Poe, as a witness, testified that he had sexual intercourse with said Jeannette. Upon different witnesses introduced by the state testifying to the defendant having given to Jeannette Frail presents, consisting of rings, bracelets, dresses, hats, gloves, and other things, the defendant separately objected to each of the questions evoking such testimony, and also separately moved the court to exclude such testimony from the jury. The court overruled each of the several objections and each of the several motions, and to each of these rulings the defendant separately excepted. Upon the cross-examination of one of the witnesses for the state, the defendant asked him the following questions: "Did not a certain man in Pratt City, before that time [when defendant told him he was likely to marry Jeannette Frail], tell you that he had had sexual intercourse with Jeannette Frail?" "Had you not heard previous to that time that one or two men had had sexual intercourse with Jeannette Frail?" "Have you not heard that a friend of yours had sexual intercourse with Jeannette Frail previous to January, 1897?" The state objected to each of these questions, as they were asked, the court sustained the objections, and the defendant separately excepted to each of such rulings. Upon the examination of T. L. Kennedy, a witness for the defendant, the defendant asked him the following question: "Was there not considerable complaint in the neighborhood about the unseasonable hours Jeannette Frail kept with young men, and the manner in which she carried on with them?" The state objected to this question, the court sustained the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. Upon the examination of one McClellan, a witness for the defendant, the defendant asked the following questions: "Do you know the general character of Jeannette Frail for chastity previous to January, 1897? " "State whether or not you heard previous to January, 1897, that Jeannette Frail was not a chaste woman." The state objected to each of these questions separately, and defendant separately excepted to the court's sustaining each of the objections. Mrs. Mary McLaughlin, a witness for the state, testified that she was a sister of the defendant; that she knew Jeannette Frail, and during the time the defendant was visiting Jeannette he was boarding at her house; that she asked the defendant what sort of a girl Jeannette was, and he told her that she was a nice girl, that he intended to marry her, and that she could not let her daughter go with a nicer girl. The defendant moved the court to exclude the declarations of the defendant as testified to by the said witness, and duly excepted to the court's overruling his motion. Mrs. Mary Anderson, a witness for the defendant, testified that she knew Jeannette Frail and the defendant; that Jeannette told her that she was going to wait until just before defendant married, and then she was going to sue him. The defendant asked the said witness Mrs. Anderson the following questions: "Did Miss Frail ever say anything to you about having had criminal connection with Suther, the defendant?" "Did Miss Frail ever at any time before the suit, and after the break-up, say anything to you about the break-up between her and Suther?" "Did Miss Frail tell you last summer, at your house, that her mother made her break off with Suther?" The state objected to each of these questions separately, the court sustained each objection, and the defendant separately excepted to each of such rulings. After Harry Anderson, a witness for the defendant, had testified that he had had sexual intercourse with Jeannette Frail, the prosecutrix, the state asked him the following question: "Did you not, at Pratt City dummy station, some time two weeks ago, tell Shugart that you were afraid not to testify for Suther, for fear he would have you arrested?" The defendant objected to this question, the court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The witness answered that he did not. There was evidence introduced by the state, in rebuttal, tending to show admissions by the witnesses Poe and Harry Anderson that they had each received money from the defendant to testify or on account of their testimony, in this case.

Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the court, in its oral charge, instructed the jury, among other things, as follows: "The seduction must be accomplished by means of temptation, deception, arts, flattery, or a promise of marriage. Deception is that act of deceiving,-the intentional misleading of another by a falsehood spoken or acted. Temptation is that which tempts to evil-an evil enticement or allurement. Flattery is an effort to influence another by use of false or excessive praise, insincere complimentary language or conduct. Art is the skillful and systematic arrangement or adaptation of means for the attainment of some desired end." The defendant duly excepted to this portion of the court's general charge, and also excepted to the following portion of said charge: "The word 'seduce,' as found in the statute, imports, not only illicit sexual intercourse, but also a surrender of the woman's chastity. By this it is not, however, intended that the woman who may have at some time fallen cannot be the subject of seduction. Although she may have fallen at some time, yet, if she has reformed, and at the time she yielded to the man she is chaste, then she is in the protection of the statute."

The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal of each of them, among others, as asked "(8) If, after considering all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to the truth of the testimony of the witnesses who testify that they had sexual intercourse with Jeannette Frail before the alleged seduction, you must find the defendant not guilty. (9) Unless, upon a consideration of all the testimony, the jury believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the testimony of the witnesses as to sexual intercourse with Jeannette Frail before the time of the alleged seduction is true, you must find the defendant not guilty. (10) Even though the jury may believe the defendant had sexual intercourse with Jeannette Frail, yet, unless they further believe to a moral certainty such intercourse was procured by means of a promise of marriage, they must find the defendant not guilty. (11) If the jury entertain a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the woman submitted to sexual intercourse by reason of a promise of marriage, or through her own passions, they must find the defendant not guilty. (12) Even though the jury may believe there was sexual intercourse between the defendant and Jeannette Frail, this is not sufficient. They must further believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman was chaste, and surrendered her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Phillips v. Ashworth
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 10, 1929
    ...... woman as described. [124 So. 521] . in seduction statutes: People v. Weinstock (Mag. Ct.) 140 N.Y.S. 455; State v. Wallace, 79 Or. 129, 154 P. 430, L. R. A. 1916D, 457; State v. Eddy,. 40 S.D. 390, 167 N.W. 392; Wiley v. Fleck, 189 Iowa,. 614, 178 N.W. 410. ... time of the alleged seduction. Shadix v. Brown, 216. Ala. 516, 113 So. 581, 583; Suther v. State, 118. Ala. 88, 24 So. 43; Weaver v. State, 142 Ala. 33, 39. So. 341. . . We. approve the interpretation of seduction statutes ......
  • Salchert v. Reinig
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • February 18, 1908
    ...virtue under a promise of marriage may serve in greater or less degree to enhance the damages she would suffer by a breach. Suther v. State, 118 Ala. 88, 97, 24 South. 43;Smith v. State, 118 Ala. 117, 122, 24 South. 55;Smith v. Milburn, 17 Iowa, 30;People v. Clark, 33 Mich. 112;People v. Sq......
  • Mitchell v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 1962
    ...under our statute the requirement of chastity relates to the time of the offense. Hussey v. State, 86 Ala. 34, 5 So. 484; Suther v. State, 118 Ala. 88, 24 So. 43. A woman who may have surrendered her virtue may by reformation possess the virtue of chastity at the time of her seduction, and ......
  • Breece v. Jett, 37824
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 30, 1977
    ...at 433-434.20 Deception is the art of deceiving the intentional misleading of another by a falsehood spoken or acted. Suther v. State, 118 Ala. 88, 24 So. 43, 44 (1898).21 Art is the skillful and systematic arrangement or adaptation of means for the attainment of some desired end. Suther v.......
  • 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