Seduction

The act or crime of persuading a female, by flattery or deception, to surrender her chastity.

Webster.

The corrupting, deceiving and drawing aside from the path of virtue which she was pursuing of a virtuous woman, by such acts and wiles, in connection with a promise of marriage, as were calculated to operate upon The wrong of inducing a female to consent to unlawful sexual intercourse, by enticements and persuasions overcoming her reluctance and scruples.

Hood v. Sudderth, 111 N. C. 215, 16 S. E. 397.

And seduction may occur whether the woman is conscious or not; Marshall v. Taylor, 98 Cal. 55, 32 Pac. 867, 35 Am. St Rep. 144. In civil cases, seduction and debauching are generally used as substantially similar terms; Stoudt v. Shepherd, 73 Mich. 588, 41 N. W. 696. Mere illicit intercourse is not seduction, although a promise of marriage be made; People v. Clark, 33 Mich. 112; there must be some promise, deception, art, or influence of the seducer whereby chastity is surrendered; Dinkey v. Com., 17 Pa. 126, 55 Am. Dec. 542; State v. Reeves, 97 Mo. 668, 10 S. W. 841, 10 Am. St. Rep. 349. Force is not an element of seduction, although force is used after consent is obtained; People v. De Fore, 64 Mich. 693, 31 N. W. 585, 8 Am. St. Rep. 863. That force was used makes no difference; Velthouse v, Alderink, 153, Mich. 217, 117 N. W. 76, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 587, 15 Ann. Cas. 1111. The complainant must be chaste at the time of the seduction, and a reasonable doubt as to such fact is fatal to a recovery; State v. Deitrick, 51 la.

467, 1 N. W. 732.

Chastity, in the civil or criminal action, means actual personal virtue, and not reputation; Andre v. State, 5 la. 3S9, 68 Am. Dec. 708; and requires specific acts of lewdness for impeachment; Kenyon v. People, 26 N. Y. 203, 84 Am. Dec. 177. Previous chastity is presumed; State v. Wenz, 41 Minn. 196, 42 N. W. 933; Mills v. Com., 93 Va. 815, 22 S. E. 863. As to what may be shown to establish lack of chastity, see State v. Wheeler, 94 Mo. 252, 7 S. W. 103; State v. Prinun, 9S Mo. 368, 11 S. W. 732; State v. Patterson, 88 Mo. 88, 57 Am. Rep. 374. Chastity must be affirmatively shown where the statute requires that the person seduced be of good repute; Oliver v. Com., 101 Pa. 215, 47 Am. Rep. 704. Although a woman may have fallen, if she repent and reform, she is the object of seduction; State v. Carron, 18 la.

372, 87 Am. Dec. 401; Wilson v. State, 73 Ala. 527.

Most states have enacted statutes making seduction a crime. What allurements are sufficient to constitute seduction, is for the jury to determine; State v. Higdon, 32 la. 262; and the courts allow considerable latitude in the evidence; Lewis v. People, 37 Mich. 518; State v. Thompson, 79 la.

703, 45 W. 293.

The indictment should allege the essential elements of the crime as defined by statute; Wilson v. State, 73 Ala. 527. Where there are several counts the prosecution cannot be compelled to elect; Armstrong v. People, 70 N. Y. 38. The statutes generally require: — that senot be valid; Callahan v. State, 63 Ind. 198, 30 Am. Rep. 211; provided the seduced was ignorant of its invalidity; Kelley v. Riley, 106 Mass. 339, 8 Am. Rep. 336, and it may have been made some time prior to the seduction; Armstrong v. People, 70 N. Y. 38; and the defendant may have intended to fulfil it; State v. Bierce, 27 Conn. 319; and he need not he of lawful age to marry; Polk v. State, 40 Ark. 4S2, 48 Am. Rep. 17. The previous character of the prosecutrix is to be determined by the jury; State v. Carron, 18 la.

372, 87 Am. Dec. 401.

Chastity is always an issue; Hussey v. State, 86 Ala. 34, 5 South. 484; but is always presumed, and the burden of impeaching it is on the defendant; State v. Mc Clintic, 73 la.

663, 35 N. W. 696.

The statutes generally require the evidence of the complainant to be corroborated; State v. Mc Caskey, 104 Mo. 044, 10 S. W. 511; but as to what must be corroborated there is much confusion; State v. Timmens, 4 Minn. 325 (Gil. 241); People v. Kearney, 110 N. Y. 188, 17 N. E. 736; Wilson v. State, 73 Ala. 527. The seduction of a married woman is known as criminal conversation, for which the husband has an action against the seducer; 2 Greenl.

Ev. § 40.

In England the statute 20 and 21 Viet. ch. 85, § 59, deprives the husband of the action but allows him damages in a suit for divorce where the seducer is made co-respondent. See Crim. Con. As to the seduction or alienation of a husband’s affections, see Entice. At common law the woman herself has no action for damages, though practically the end is reached by a suit for breach of promise of marriage, in many cases, but in some states the rule has been altered by statute. The parent, as being entitled to the services of his daughter, may maintain an action in many cases grounded upon that right, but only in such cases; 6 M. & W. 55; Mc Daniel v. Edwards, 29 N. C. 408, 47 Am. Dec. 331; Lee v. Hodges, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 720; Vossel v. Cole, 10 Mo. 634, 47 Am. Dec. 136; Lawyer v. Fritcher, 130 N. Y. 239, 29 N. E. 267, 14 L. R. A. 700, 27 Am. St. Rep. 521. (But this rule was not followed in Baumann v. Kusian, 164 Cal. 582, 129 Pac. 986, 44 L. R. A. [N. S.] 757; Hood v. Sudderth, 111 N. C. 215, 16 S. E. 397.) In England the parent’s right of action terminates when the child leaves the parent’s house without the intention of returning; 5 East 45; where an employer seduces the maid, no action lies; [1901] 2 K. B. 722; the maid is no longer the servant of her parent; 36 Ir.