kidnapping

The forcible abduction or stealing away of a man, woman, or ohild from their own country, and sending them into another. 4 Bl. Comm. 219. Statutory definitions are somewhat different. Actual force is not necessary; fraud or intimidation may suffice. 88 N. Y. 182. But the taking must be against the will of the person, and consent is a defense unless the person was incapable of consenting (8 N. H. 550; 25 N. Y. 272), or the consent was obtained by fraud (20 111, 315),

The forcible abduction or stealing away of a man, woman, or child from their -own country and sending them There Is no wide dl Cference In meaning between kidnapping, false imprisonment, and abduction. The better view seems to be that kidnapping is a false imprisonment, which it alwaj's Includes, aggravated by the carrying of the person to some other place; Archb. Cr. P. by Pom. 984; 2 Bish. Cr. L. i 760. See Ex parte Keil, 85 Cal. 309, 24 Pac. 742. It has been held that transportation to a foreign country is not necessary, though this conflicts with Blackstone’s deflnition, supra; State v. Rollins, 8 N, H. 550. See 1 East, P. C. 429. The consent of a mature person of sound mind prevents any act from being kidnapping; otherwise as to a young child; a child of nine years has been held too young to render his consent available as a defence; Cl. Cr. L. 221; State v. Farrar, 41 N. H. 53; Com. v. Nicker.son, 5 Allen (Mass.) 518; Gravett v. State, 74 Ga, 191; U. S. V. Ancarola, 17 Blatchf. 423, 1 Fed. 676; but a female fourteen years of age is not kidnapped, if taken away with her consent for the purpose of marriage, and she actually marries; Cochran v. State, 91 Ga. 763, 18 S. E. 16; so, going away by previous arrangement with an unmarried woman who, becoming Intoxicated, remained for some days, in illicit intercourse, and was then brought back at her request, was not kidnapping; Ebeiiing v. State, 136 Ind. 117, 85 N. E, 1023. Physical force need not be applied, threats will suffice; Payson v. Macomber, 3 Allen (Mass.) 69; or fraudulently acquiring consent; People v. Do Leon, 109 N. Y. 226, 16 N. E. 46, 4 Am. St. Rep. 444. The crime may be effected by means of menaces; Moody V. People, 20 111. 315; or by getting a man drunk; Hadden v. People, 25 N. Y. 373. Where the custody of a child is assigned to one of two divorced parents, and the other, or a third person employed for the purpose, carries it off, it is kidnapping; State V. Farrar, 41 N. H. 53; Com. v. Nickerson, 6 Allen (Mass.) 518. It was held that within the meaning of the statute against kidnapping, any place where a child has a right to be is its residence; Wallace v. State, 147 Ind. 621, 47 N. E. 13. In this ca.se two children who were acrobats had been sent away from home for the purpose of giving exhibitions to raise money with which to relieve the necessities of the family. While absent from their parents they were decoyed away by defendant, who was Indicted for kidnapping under the Indiana statute. The court held that they had not acquired a permanent residence, but they were at a place they had a right to be — to which they had been sent by their parents, engaged In the business for which they had been sent. “The purpose of the statute here under consideration certainly was not that a child might be kidnapped at its father’s house, was rather to provide against the kidnapping of a person from any place where he has a right to be, whether that be the place of his ‘temporary sojourn or permanent domicile.’ A child may be kidnapped, not only from its domicile or the home of its parents, but likewise from a neighbor’s house, from church or school, or hotel, from, a hall of public entertainment, or, in fact, from any place' where it has a right to be; and it is in that sense that the word ‘residence’ is here used,’’ 17 N. Y. L. J. 842. One who takes his child of tender years out of the state, with its consent and with the consent of the mother to whom its custody has been awarded in divorce proceedings, to prevent its presence at a criminal trial in which it had been subpoenaed as a witness, is not guilty of kidnapping; John v. State, 6 Wyo. 203, 44 Pac. 51. New York, Illinois, and other states have passed statutes on kidnapping. See Adduction; 1 Russ. Cr. 962; Click v. State, 3 Tex. 282; Com. v, Blodgett, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 56; People v, De Leon, 47 Hun (N. Y.) 308; Com. v. Myers, 146 Pa, 24, 23 Atl. 164. Where defendant procured an adjudication that the person alleged to have been kidnapped was insane, and, without using force, publicly conveyed her to a lunatic asylum, though she was not insane at the time, he was not guilty of the offence of kidnapping; People v. Camp, 139 N. Y. 87, 34 N. E. 755. The indictment must be found in the county in which the person was seized and not in one through which he was carried; State V. Whaley, 2 Harring. (Del.) 538. It has been held, however, that the carrying away is not essential; State v. Rollins, 8 N. H. 550, The crime includes a false imprisonment; 2 Bish. Cr. Law § 671. See Abduction. It has been held that in order to rescue a kidnapped per.son his friends may use such force as will be necessary, and that where there is an attack upon the rescuers, a killing of the kidnapper in self-defence is excusable homicide; Delaney v. Com., 25 S. W. 830. KILL (Dutch). Originally the bed of a river or creek, and by relation used to mean the stream itself. It is so used in Delaware and New York, but has been said to have no distinct legal signification. French v. Carhart, 1 N. Y. 96.

The forcible abduction or stealing away of a man, woman, or child from their own country, and sending them into another. It is an offense punishable at the commen law by fine and imprisonnent. 4 Bl, Comm. 219. In American law, this word is seldom, if at all, applied to the abduction of other persons than children, and the intent to send them out of the country does not seem toconstitute a necessary part of the offense, The term is said to include false imprisonment. 2 Bish. Crim. Law, § 671.