OpenJurist › Volume 64 › N.H. › Page 577 Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1888-06-05
Indictment, upon Gen. Laws, c. 274, s. 10, for wilfully and deceitfully enticing away a female child under the age of eighteen years, with the intent and for the purpose of prostitution.
▾ Read full summary Good law ✅ — No negative treatment on record how we know
Decided 1888-06-05
How this case has been cited Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1931
4 state decisions
2 0 1888 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 decided Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
Doe, C. J.
¶1
The defendant’s purpose of keeping the girl as his mistress was not “ the purpose of prostitution ” within the meaning of Gen. Laws,
c.
274,
s.
10.
¶2
Exceptions sustained.
Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Download
Copy
Embed on your site
iframe Markdown Preview card Button Hover to preview · click to copy the code
Case posture Posture INDICTMENT, upon Gen. Laws, c. 274, s. 10, for wilfully and deceitfully enticing away a female child under the age of eighteen years, with the intent and for the purpose of prostitution.
The evidence for the government tended to show that the defendant enticed the person named in the indictment, a girl of the age of sixteen years, from her home in Newport, in this county, and unlawfully cohabited with her, as his wife, under assumed names, at several places in Massachusetts, for five or six days.
The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that if he only intended to obtain the girl for his own carnal enjoyment, the act did not amount to her prostitution in the sense of the law; that the term prostitution, as used in the statute, means common, indiscriminate, illicit intercourse, and not sexual intercourse confined exclusively to one man.
The court declined to give the instructions requested, and instructed the jury that if the girl was enticed away by the defendant with the intent and for the purpose of maintaining and continuing unlawful sexual relations with her for an indefinite period, and living with her in a condition of concubinage or criminal cohabitation, she was enticed away for purposes of prostitution within the meaning of the statute.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant was sentenced to the state prison and committed. The defendant excepted to the refusal to give the instructions requested, and to the instructions given, and filed this bill of exceptions, which was allowed. Source: CourtListener
/64/nh/577 · .json · Public domain 