The fact that the taker believes in good faith that the girl is above the age mentioned in the statute is no defense;1 .178 but it seems to be necessary that he shall know or have reason to believe that she is under the lawful care or charge of her father, mother, or some other person." 179 It also seems that there must be some improper motive.180 178 Reg. v. Prince, L. R. 2 C. C. 154, 13 Cox, C. C. 138; Reg. v. Robins, Car. & K. 456; Reg. Reg. v. Mycock, 12 v. Olifier, 10 Cox, C. C. 402; 179 Steph. Dig. Crim. Law, art. 262. Thus, where a man met a girl under sixteen in the street, and got her to stay with him for several hours, during which time he seduced her, and then took her back to the place where he found her, and she returned home, but he was not aware at the time that she had a father or mother living, it was held that he was not guilty of abduction. Reg. v. Hibbert, L. R. 1 C. C. 184, 11 Cox, C. C. 246. See, also, Reg. v. Green, 3 Fost. & F. 274. 180 Thus, in Reg. v. Tinkler, 1 Fost. & F. 513, Beale's Cas. 285, where the defendant was indicted for the abduction of a girl under sixteen, and it did not appear that he had any improper motive, the jury was directed to acquit him if they thought he merely wished to have the child The expression "taking out of the possession" means taking the girl to some place where the person in whose charge she is cannot exercise control over her, for some purpose inconsistent with the objects of such control.181 Where a lady persuaded a girl under sixteen to leave her father's house and come to her house for a short time, for the purpose of going to the play with her, it was held that there was no abduction.182 A taking for a short time only may amount to an abduction. Thus, where a man persuaded a girl to leave her father's house and sleep with him for three nights, and then sent her back, it was held an abduction.183 to live with him, and honestly believed that he had a right to the custody of the child, although he might have had no such right. Compare, however, Reg. v. Booth, 12 Cox, C. C. 231. 181 Steph. Dig. Crim. Law, art. 262. See Slocum v. People, 90 Ill. 274. A girl who is away from her home is still in the custody or possession of her father, if she intends to return to her home. Reg. v. Mycock, 12 Cox, C. C. 28. 182 Steph. Dig. Crim. Law, p. 199; Reg. v. Timmins, Bell, C. C. 276, 8 Cox, C. C. 401. 183 Reg. v. Timmins, Bell, C. C. 276, 8 Cox, C. C. 401. See, also, Reg. v. Baillie, 8 Cox, C. C. 238. When the taking is required, as in the English statute, to be against the will of the father or other person having the care or charge of the girl, the taking must be without his consent. But it is not necessary, unless expressly required by the statute, to show a trespass or force, or anything of that nature, in the taking. Persuasion or enticement is sufficient.184 If the consent of the person from whose possession the child is taken is obtained by fraud, the taking is against his will, within the meaning of the statute.185 Enticement for the Purpose of Prostitution or Concubinage.-It has been held that, to constitute the statutory offense of enticing or taking away an unmarried female "for the 184 Reg. v. Frazer, 8 Cox, C. C. 446; Reg. v. Hopkins, Car. & M. 254; Reg. v. Biswell, 2 Cox, C. C. 279; Reg. v. Kipps, 4 Cox, C. C. 167; Reg. v. Robb, 4 Fost. & F. 59; State v. Gordon, 46 N. J. Law, 432; People v. Carrier, 46 Mich. 442; State v. Johnson, 115 Mo. 480; State v. Chisenhall, 106 N. C. 676; Mason v. State, 29 Tex. App. 24; State v. Jameson, 38 Minn. 21. 185 Thus, when a man induced a girl's father to permit her to go away by falsely pretending that he would find a place for her, he was held guilty of abduction. M. 254. Reg. v. Hopkins, Car. & purpose of prostitution," the enticement or abduction must be for the purpose of making a "common prostitute" of the woman, and that a man is not guilty of this offense where he entices or abducts a female for the purpose of illicit intercourse with himself alone, for the term "prostitution" imports the practice of a female offering her body to an indiscriminate intercourse with men,-the common lewdness of a female.186 When the statute punishes a taking for the purpose of concubinage, this purpose must be shown.187 The courts, however, do not agree as to what constitutes a taking for the purpose 186 State v. Stoyell, 54 Me. 24, 89 Am. Dec. 716. In this case, a statute punished any person who should fraudulently and deceitfully entice or take away an unmarried female "for the purpose of prostitution at a house of ill fame, assignation, or elsewhere," etc. The defendant had, by false representations, induced a female to go with him to a neighboring town, where, having induced partial intoxication, he had repeated sexual intercourse with her. It was held that this was not within the statute, as his purpose was not to make her a common prostitute, but to have intercourse with her himself only. See, also, Haygood v. State, 98 Ala. 61; Nichois v. State, 127 Ind. 406. 187 State v. Gibson, 108 Mo. 575. of concubinage. Some of them require more than a single act of intercourse, while others do not.188 In some jurisdictions the term has been held to apply to any lewd intercourse between the parties. 189 VI. HOMICIDE. (A) The Homicide. 233. Definition.-Homicide is any killing of a human being. It is either To constitute a homicide, and to render a person accused responsible at all, aside from any question as to whether he is guilty of murder or manslaughter, or whether the homicide is justifia ble or excusable, 1. The killing must be of a living human be- 188 See State v. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92; State v. Johnson. 115 Mo. 480; State v. Wilkinson, 121 Mo. 485. See, also, State v. Richardson, 117 Mo. 586; Slocum v. People, 90 III. 274; State v. Overstreet, 43 Kan. 299. 189 People v. Cummons, 56 Mich. 544. |