Abduction

In England. By St. 3 Hen. VII c. 2, the taking of any woman having property, or being heir apparent thereto, to be married or defiled. Under a later statute (24 & 25 Vict, c. 100), the taking of any woman, having certain property or expectancies, to be married or defiled; the taking of such a woman, being under the age of twenty-one years, out of the possession of the person having lawful charge of her; the taking of any woman of any age by force, with intent to cause her to be married or defiled; the taking of any unmarried girl, under the age of sixteen years, out of possession of the person having lawful possession of her; or the taking of any child, under the age of fourteen years, with intent to deprive its lawful guardian of its custody. In the United States. In most, if not all, of the United States, the crime is regulated by statute; but allowing for statutory variations, the elements may be stated as: (1) The taking, which must be by some affirmative act of force or persuasion. 6 Park. Cr. R. 129, 86 N. Y. 369. (2) From the custody of a parent or guardian; but a mere enticing for the forbidden purpose to a place near her home, to which she is shortly permitted to return, is sufficient. 90 III. 274. In some states this is not essential. (3) For the purpose of making the female a prostitute or concubine, or of procuring her to the above being omitted, and in some states that of fornication being added. The purpose need not be accomplished. 4 N. Y. Cr. R. 306; 5 N. Y. Cr. R. 61. (4) In some states, the female is required to have been of previous chaste character, or to be below a given age. Where these elements actually exist, defendant's ignorance of them is no defense. 115 Mo. 480.

Forcibly taking away a The unlawful taking or detention of any female for purposes of marriage, concubinage, or prostitution. 4 Steph. Com. 84. In many states this offence is created by statute and in most cases applies to females under a given age. The definitions of the crime differ in terms, but not in general results. They usually forbid the taking away or detaining or enticing of a female under a specified age, for purposes of concubinage or prostitution. In Minnesota the taking away for the purpose of marriage under the age of 15 is forbidden; and the statute is valid although some females are authorized by the law of that state to marry at that age; State v. Sager, 99 Minn. 54, 108 N. W. 812. The important element of the offence is the taking for the unlawful purpose, which is accomplished when the female is removed from the custody of parents or others having control of her, by means of any device, enticement or persuasion; State v. Tucker, 72 Kan. 481, 84 Pac. 126. Unlawful detention and intention of having carnal knowledge are the necessary facts; Com. v. Littrell, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 251. In some states the fact that a female taken for concubinage was not chaste is no defence; State v. Johnson, 115 Mo. 4S0, 22 S. VY*. 463; People v. Dolan, 96 Cal. 315, 31 Pac. 107; the law presumes a woman's previous life to have been chaste, and the burden of proof to show otherwise rests on the defendant; Slocum v. People, 90 111. 274; People v. Parshall, 6 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 129; Carpenter v. People, 8 Barb.' (N. Y.) 603; State v. Jones, 191 Mo. 653, 90 S. W. 465; State v. Bobbst, 131 Mo. 32S, 32 S. W. 1149. The offence is complete when there is a criminal intent at the time of the taking away, though there may be a subsequent purpose to marry; State v. Adams, 179 Mo. 334, 78 S. W. 588; State v. Sager, 99 Minn. 54, 108 N. W. 812. Ignorance of the girl's age is no defence; Riley v. State (Miss.) 18 South. 117; Tores v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 63 S. W. 880; nor is her request; Griffin v. State, 109 Tenn. 17, 70 S. W. 61; State v. Bussey, 58 Kan. 679, 50 Pac. 891; nor that he believed and with good reason that she was over the statutory age; L. R. 2 C. C. 154; Beckham v. Nacke, 56 Mo. 546; State v. Ruhl, 8 la. 447; nor the early abandonment of the relation and the return of the girl to her father with the man's assistance; State v. Neasby, 1S8 Mo. 467, 87 S. W. 468. It must appear that it was against her will; Hoskins v. Com., 7 Ky. L. Rep. 41; State v. Hromadko, 123 la. 665, 99 N. W. 560. It is stated to be the better opinion, that if a man marries a woman under age, without the consent of her father or guardian, that act is not indictable at common law; but if children are taken from their parents by violence, deceit, conspiracy, or any corrupt or improper practices, as by intoxication, for the purpose of marrying them, though the parties themselves consent to the marriage, such criminal means will render the act an offence at common law; 1 East," PI. Cr. 458; 1 Rus. Cr. 902; Rose. Cr. Ev. 260. A mere attempt to abduct is not sufficient; People v. Parshall, 6 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 129. Solicitation or inducement is sufficient, and the taking need not be by force; People v. Seeley, 37 Hun (N. Y.) 190; Slocum v. People, 90 111. 274; People v. Carrier, 46 Mich. 442, 9 N. W. 487. The remedy for taking away a man's wife was by a suit by the husband for damages, and the offender was also answerable to the king; 3 Bla. Com. 139. See Kidnapping; Entice; and as to whether criminals abducted from another state may be prosecuted, see Fugitive Faoii Justice; Extradition. Civil Action. At common law the father had no right of civil action for the abduction of a child, except in case of the heir, in which case there was an action because of the interest in his marriage; Cro. Eliz. 770; but afterwards the right of action was sustained upon the theory of loss of services; 1 Wood. Lect. 270; 3 Bla. Com. 140; and on that ground it has been generally recognized in this country; Caughey v. Smith, 47 N. Y. 244; Wodell v. Coggeshall, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 89, 35 Am. Dec. 391; Hills v. Hobert, 2 Root (Conn.) 48; Plummer v. Webb, 4 Mas. 380, Fed. Cas. No. 11,233; Cutting v. Seabury, 1 Sprague 522, Fed. Cas. No. 3,521; Steele v. Thacher, 1 Ware (Dav. 91) 85, Fed. Cas. No. 13,348; Kirkpatrick v. Lockhart, 2 Brev. (S. C.) 276; and the action lies by one standing in loco parentis, as the grandfather of an illegitimate child who has assumed the care of it; Moritz v. Garnhart, 7 Watts (Pa.) 302, 32 Am. Dec. 762. The proper form of action is in some states held to be trespass on the case; Sargent v. Mathewson, 38 N. H. 54; Jones v. Tevis, 4 Lift. (Ky.) 25, 14 Am. Dec. 98; in others, trespass vi et armis; Yaughan v. Rhodes, 2 Mc Cord (S. C.) 227, 13 Am. Dec. 713; Schoul. Dom. Rel. 354. Exemplary damages may be recovered; Magee v. Holland, 27 N. J. L. 86, 72 Am. Dec. 341; Stowe v. Heywood, 7 Allen (Mass.) 118; and mental pain inflicted on the child may be considered; Brown v. Crockett, 8 La. Ann. 30. It is no defence that the abducted girl and her whole family were of loose and immoral character; Dobson v. Cothran, 34 S. C. 518. 13 S. E. 679. The right of action of the mother after the death of the father has been doubted, but is said to be sustained by the better opinion; 13 Am. Dec. 716, n.; see also Com. v. Murray. 4 Bin. (Pa.) 487, 5 Am. Dec. 412; Coon v. Moffet, 3 N. J. Law 583, zance to be of good abearance, signi Ges to be of good behavior. 4 Bla. Com. 251, 256. See Penna. Register 377, where William Penn, sitting judicially, used the term.

The fraudulent or forcible taking away of a wife, child, or ward; the unlawful taking or detaining of a female for the

In criminal law. The offense of taking away a man’s wife, child, or ward, by fraud and persuasion, or open violence. 3 BI. Comm. 139-141. The unlawful taking or detention of any female for the purpose of marriage, concubinage, or prostitution.

2 Taking away a wife, child, or ward, by fraud and persuasion, or open violence. 3 In private or civil law, the act of taking away a man's wife by violence or persuasion.* In criminal law, the act of taking away or detaining a woman either against her own will, or, in the case of a minor, against the will of her parents or other person having the lawful cliarge of her.* Any unlawful seizure or detention of a female. 6 The taking may be accomplished by solicitations or inducements, as well as by force. This, at least, is the intention of the California statute which punishes abductions for purposes of prostitution.'^ In New York, also, it must be proved that there was persuasive inducement on the part of the accused, for the purposes of prostitution; mere permission or allowance to fo Uow such a life is not enough. And proof must be given, aside from the testimony of the alleged abducted female, of the taking and the specific intent.' Harboring against the will is abduction. Not, protection against abuse, nor shelter given after the parent or guardian has relinquished the right of control. Every abduction includes a false imprisonment. The remedies are trespass vi et artnis for damages, and indictment for the assault and battery.' See Kidnaping; Sekvitcde, 1.

The forcible or fraudulent carrying child, or female servant.

[Lat. abductio, from abducere, to lead away.] In criminal law. The offence of taking away a man's wife, child or ward, by fraud and persuasion, or open violence. 3 Bl. Com. 139-141. 3 Steph. Com. 538, 539. The term is applied also to the unlawful taking, or detention of any female, for the purpose of marriage, concubinage or prostitution. Stat. 9 Geo. IV. c. 31, sec. 19, 20. 4 Steph. Com. 129. See 2 N. Y. Rev. Stat. [663, 664,] 653, §§ 24-26. See Kidnapping.

crim. law, the carrying away of any person by force or fraud. This is a misdemeanor punishable by indictment. 1 East, P. C. 458; 1 Russcll, 569; the civil remedies are recaption, (q. v.) 3 Inst. 134; Hal. Anal. 46; 3 Bl. Com. 4; by writ of habeas cor- gi pus; and an action of trespass, Fitz. N. B. 69; 3 BI. Com. 139, n. 27; Roscoe, Cr. Ev. 193.