The State v. Neasby
| Decision Date | 16 May 1905 |
| Citation | 87 S.W. 468,188 Mo. 467 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. NEASBY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Douglas Circuit Court. -- Hon. Asbury Burkhead, Judge.
Affirmed.
Herbert S. Hadley, Attorney-General, and Rush C. Lake, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
The evidence supports the verdict in that it shows clearly that India Hatfield was under the age of eighteen years and that she was living at the home of her father, and was prevailed upon by the defendant to go with him to Arkansas. State v. Bobbst, 131 Mo. 328.
In an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of Douglas county, on the 13th of October, 1902, in the circuit court of said county, the defendant was charged with unlawfully and feloniously taking India Hatfield, a female under the age of eighteen and over the age of fifteen years from her father William Hatfield, he, the said William Hatfield, then and there having the legal charge of the person of said India Hatfield, for the purpose of concubinage with him, the said George Neasby, against the peace and dignity of the State and James Turner, Annie Turner, and Victory Williams were charged with having, before the commission of said felony, unlawfully and feloniously incited, moved, procured, aided, counselled, hired and commanded the said defendant to do and commit the said felony, in manner and form aforesaid, against the peace and dignity of the State.
The information was sufficiently verified by the prosecuting attorney himself. A severance was granted and the defendant Neasby was put upon his separate trial before a jury at the September term, 1903, of said circuit court, and a verdict of guilty returned, assessing his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of four years. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were duly filed, heard and overruled, and the defendant sentenced pursuant to the verdict. From that judgment he appealed to this court.
The defendant is not represented by counsel in this court, but in obedience to the statute we have read and examined the entire record in the cause. The defendant is a negro man and the prosecutrix a white girl. The evidence tends to show these facts: The prosecutrix lived in her father's family on a farm in Douglas county. She had never attended a school and was wofully ignorant, as were her parents, neither of whom could read or write. How the prosecutrix came under the influence of the defendant is not very clear, but it appears that one evening while, as she testifies, she was going to a neighbor's to work, she was told, by one of the alleged accessories before the fact, that George, the defendant, wanted to see her. He came to the road where she was and walked with her and importuned and begged her to leave her home and go with him. The next night she met him, and, at his solicitation, without further ado, started and went with him to the State of Arkansas. They travelled together on foot for two days and nights, and finally reached the home of a sister of the defendant in Arkansas. They started on Monday and arrived at his sister's on Thursday night.
The prosecutrix testified that he proposed marriage to her, but she said she would not marry a negro. On the trip they cohabited as man and wife. On the first of the next week, they returned to this State, and, as he told her he was going to his father's, she requested him to bring her to the neighborhood of her home, which he did, and left her, and she sent her father word and he went after her and took her home. We gather from his evidence that the defendant relied upon the fact that she was over eighteen years of age, and that he had not taken her from her father's home, but that she went of her own accord and he permitted her to do so at her request. He testified in his own behalf, but did not deny the cohabitation. The instructions and other facts will be noted in connection with the grounds assigned for a new trial.
I. The main contention on the trial was as to the age of the prosecutrix. As already said, she was utterly ignorant. Had never been to school and could not read or write and did not know her own age. Her parents were likewise lamentably ignorant.
The father, William Hatfield, testified he had lived in Douglas county all of his life; that he had been married about twenty-one years; that he had kept no family record in the Bible, but that from time to time he had gotten his neighbors to record the births of his children on a piece of paper which he kept for that purpose. This paper was produced in court and identified by himself and one of his neighbors who had recorded thereon the birth of one of the children. This witness testified that the entry as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial