Abduction

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.