Van Pelt v. United States

• Decision Date: 07 March 1917
• Docket Number: 1462.
• Citation: 240 F. 346
• Parties: VAN PELT v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

240 F. 346

VAN PELT v. UNITED STATES.

No. 1462.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

March 7, 1917

S. D Timberlake, Jr., of Staunton, Va. (Timberlake & Nelson, of Staunton, Va., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

R. E Byrd, U.S. Atty., of Richmond, Va. (Joseph H. Chitwood, Asst U.S. Atty., of Roanoke, Va., on the brief), for the United States.

Before KNAPP and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and ROSE, District Judge.

ROSE District Judge.

The appellant was convicted of a violation of the White Slave Act. He says the court below should have granted his motion for an instructed verdict of not guilty. The evidence in the view most unfavorable to him may be briefly summarized: He and the prosecuting witness were residents of Augusta county Va. Improper sexual relations between them began when she was 14 and he 35. He had been married, but was divorced before he met the prosecutrix. Their intimacy became habitual and continued for some 3 years; he having intercourse with her whenever he sought it, which was on the average about twice a week. The relations between them were not known to the community in which they lived. In October, 1913, she realized that she was pregnant. She asked the defendant to secure a place to which, before her condition became such as would arouse suspicion, she could go to await confinement. He made arrangements with a midwife in Baltimore to receive her. In the latter part of January, 1914, she told him that she would like to go. They agreed that she should leave home on the 30th of the month. By arrangement he met her on the train. They spent that night at a Washington hotel, and the next at one in Baltimore. The jury could have found that these stops at the hotels were to afford opportunity for the sexual intercourse which in point of fact took place on each occasion. She bought her own ticket from her home to Washington; he from Washington to Baltimore. He gave and sent her money much in excess of the sum she paid for her ticket. She remained at the midwife's until after their child was born.

It appears that the learned judge below delivered a written opinion, explaining why he denied a motion for a new trial, which was made upon the same grounds now urged in support of the contention that the judgment should be reversed. We regret that, as it was omitted from the record, we have not had the light it might throw on the question at issue.

Defendant's part in bringing her to Baltimore justified the jury in finding that he procured her transportation from Virginia to Maryland. The facts in this respect are clearly distinguishable from those in Welsch v. United States, 220 F. 764, 136 C.C.A. 370.

Nevertheless before defendant could be properly convicted, the evidence must show that he took a hand in procuring the transportation for the particular unlawful purpose charged in the indictment. The indictment says she was transported for the purpose of prostitution and debauchery. Clearly there was no intent that she should engage in prostitution. 'Debauch' in one sense is a synonym for 'seduce.' In this case the seduction had taken place years before. We are not prepared to say that the mere fact that a woman had once or many times fallen from virtue renders a new debauching or seduction of her by an old or new lover legally impossible; but obviously, to sustain a conviction upon the assumption that to debauch means to seduce, there must be evidence that the defendant procured the transportation in order that he might more surely, more readily, or more safely induce her to yield to his wishes. The evidence does not suggest that defendant's relations with the prosecutrix had been interrupted, or that they would not have continued, had not the trip been taken. The word 'debauchery,' as used in the statute is not limited, however, to the meaning above mentioned. Athanasaw v. United States, 227 U.S. 326, 33 Sup.Ct. 285, 57 L.Ed. 528, Ann....