RANSOM BILL. A contract for payment of ransom of a captured vessel, with stipula tions of safe conduct if she pursue a certain course and arrive at a certain time. If found out of time or course, the safe conduct is void; Wheat. Int. L. 107. Paymeit can not be enforced in England, during the war, by an action on the contract, but can in this country ; 1 Kent 104; Phillips v. McCall, 4 Wash. C. C. 141, Fed. Cas. No. 11,104; Mai sonnaire v. Keating, 2 Gall. 325, Fed. Cas. No. £1,978.
In England the imprisoned hostage may bring an action, based on the ransom bill for which he is hostage, for the recovery of his freedom, and thus indirect payment of the debt be compelled. Hall, Int. L. § 151.
By the general maritime law ransoms are allowed and the master of a ship may bind the whole cargo as well as the ship, by his contract for ransom ; 3 C. Rob. 240. They were formerly prohibited in England, but now the queen in council may make rules for prohibiting or allowing them; under the act of 1864.
Ransoms have never been prohibited by the United States ; Goodrich v. Gordon, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 6; nor by the other nations, except England ; 1 Kent 112.
A helligerent may deliver up neutral prop erty on ransoms as well as enemy's property ; per Story, J., in Maisonnaire v. Keating, 2 Gall. 325, Fed. Cas. No. 8,978, where the sub ject of ransom is discussed.
A ransom strictly speaking is not a re purchase of the captured property, it is rather a repurchase of the actual right of the captors at the time, be it what it may, or, more properly, it is a relinquishment of all the interest or benefit which the captors might acquire or consummate in the prop erty by the regular adjudications of a prize tribunal. There seems to be no legal differ ence between- the case of a ransom of the property of an enemy and of a neutral, for if the property be neutral and yet there be prob able cause of capture, or if the delinquency be such that the penalty of confiscation might be justly applied, there can be no intrinsic difficulty in supporting a contract by which the captors agree to waive their rights in consideration of a sum of money voluntarily paid or agreed to be paid by the captured; 3 .Phil. Int. L. 645.
IIi the abseiace of stipulation, if the ran somed vessel be lost, the 'contract is still binding; but usually there is a clause ex cepting loss on the high seas, but not by stranding; 2 Halleck, Int. L., 331. Should the captor vessel, with ransom bill or hostage on board, be itself captured by the other bel ligerent, the ransom bill need not be paid. 2 Opp. § 195.
RAPE (Lat. rapere, to seize with violence). The carnal knowledge of a woman by a man forcibly and unlawfully against her wilL Cr. L. 904.
e statute of Westminster 2, c. 34, de s the crime to be where "a man do ravish a woman, married, maid, or other, where she did not consent neither before nor after." And this statute definition has been adopted in several very recent cases. Ad denda to 1 Den. Cr. Cas.; 1 Bell, Cr. Cas. 63, 71.
Much difficulty has arisen in defining the meaning of carnal knowledge, and different opinions have been entertained,—some judges having supposed that penetration alone is sufficient, while others deemed emission an essential ingredient in the crime ; Hawk. Pl. Cr. b. 1, c. 41, s. 3 ; 12 Co. 37 ; 1 Hale, Pl. Cr. 638 ; 2 Chitty, Cr. Law 810. Penetration is the act of inserting the penis into the female organs of generation. 9 C. & P. 118. It was once held that in order to commit the crime of rape it is requisite that the penetration should be such as to rupture the hymen ; 5 C. & P. 321. But this case has since been ex pressly overruled ; 2 Mood. Cr. Cas. 90 ; 9 C. & P. 752 ; Whart. Cr. L. 554. In the United States In modern times the better opinion seems to be that both penetration and emission are not necessary ; Pennsyl vania v. Sullivan, Add. (Pa.) 143; 3 Greenl. Ev. § 410; 2 Bish. N. Cr. Law § 1131; Taylor v. State, 111 Ind. 279, 12 N. E. 400; Com stock v. State, 14 1Veb. 205, 15 N. W. 355 ;. State v. Burton, 1 Houst. Cr. Cas. (Del.) 363 ; Ellis v. State, 25 Fla. 702, 6 South. 768; contra, Williams v. State, 14 Ohio 222, 45 Am. Dec. 536 ; but later cases in that state intimated that if the question were new, the decision would be the other way ; Black burn v. State, 22 Ohio St. 102 ; Noble v. State, 22 Ohio St. 541. See State v. Har grave, 65 N. C. 466. Slight penetration has been held to be sufficient ; Brown v. State, 76 Ga. 623. By statute in England carnal knowledge is completely proved by proof of penetration; 9 Geo. IV. c. 31, § 18. Statutes to the same effect have been passed in some of the states ; but these statutes have been thought to be merely declaratory of the com mon law; 3 Greenl. Ev. § 210. See, on this subject, 1 Hale, Pl. Cr. 628 ; 1 East, Pl. Cr. 437 ; 1 Chitty, Med. Jur 386 ; 1 Russ. Cr. Law 860. By 24 & 25 Viet. the slightest penetration is sufficient. It is to be remark ed, also, that very slight evidence may be sufficient to induce a jury to believe there was emission ; Pennsylvania v. Sullivan, Add. (Pa.) 143; 2 Const 351; 1 Beck, Med. Jur. 140; 4 Chitty, Bla. Com. 213, note 8. See [1891] 2 Q. B. 149. In Scotland, emission is not requisite; 1 Swint. 93. See EMISSION.