ABDUCTION. Forcibly taking away a man's wife, his child, or his ward. 3 Bla. Com. 139-141; State v. George, 93 N. C. 567.
The unlawful taking or detention of any female for purposes of marriage, concubin age, or prostitution. 4 Steph. Corn. 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 re sults. 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 al though 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, en ticement 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 tak en for concubinage was not chaste is no de fence; State v. Johnson, 115 Mo. 480, 22 S. W. 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 de fendant; Slocum v. People, 90 Ill. 274; Peo Ple v. Parshall, 6 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 129; Car penter v. People, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 603; State v. Jones, 191 Mo. 653, 90 S. W. 465 ; State v. Bobbst, 131 Mo. 328, 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.) 03 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 Ia. 447 ; nor the early abandonment of the relation and the return of the girl to her father with the man's as sistance; State v. Neasby, 188 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 Ia. 665, 99 N. W. 560.
It is stated to be the better opinion, that if a man marries a woman under age, with out the consent of her father or guardian, that act is not indictalile at common law; but if children are taken from their parents or guardians, or others intrusted with the care of. them, by any sinister means, either
by violence, deceit, conspiracy, or any cor rupt or improper practices, as by intoxica tion, 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, Pl. Cr. 458; 1 Rus. Cr. 962; 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 Ill. 274; People v. Carrier, 40 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 Ina. Corn. 139.
See KIDNAPPING ; ENTICE ; and as to whether criminals abducted from another state may be prosecuted, see FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE ; EXTRADITION.
Civil Action. At common law the father had no right of civil action for the abduc tion 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 sus tained upon the theory of loss of services ; 1 Wood. Lect. 270 ; 3 Bla. Com. 140; and on that ground it has been generally recognized iu 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 (Day. 91) 85, Fed. Cas. No. 13,348 ; Kirkpatrick v. Lockhart, 2 Brev. (S. C.) 276; and the action lies by one stand ing 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 Litt (Ky.) 25, 14 Am. Dec. 98 ; in others, trespass vi et armis ; Vaughan v. Rhodes. 2 McCord (S. C.) 227, 13 Am. Dec. 713 ; School. Dom. Rel. 354. Ex emplary 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 im moral 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, hut is said to be sustained by the better opinion; 13 Am. Dec. 716, n.; see also Corn. v. Murray, 4 Bin. (Pa.) 487, 5 Am. Dee. 412 ; Coon v. Moffet, 3 N. J. Law 583, 4 Am. Dec. 405.