Case Name: The State v. Wilkinson, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1894-05-08
Citations: 121 Mo. 485
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. Wilkinson, Appellant.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 485–487

Head Matter:
The State v. Wilkinson, Appellant.
Division Two,
May 8, 1894.
'Criminal Law: abduction- for purpose of concubinage. The taking away of a girl under age for the purpose of sexual intercourse on a single occasion will not support a conviction for abduction for the purpose of concubinage. (State v. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, overruling State v. Feasel, 74 Mo. 524, affirmed.)
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. — Hon. H. L. Edmunds, Judge.
Reversed.
Indictment in two counts, the first charged defendant with having abducted Maggie Leona Centennial Roots, a female, etc., for the purpose of prostitution; the second count for the purpose of concubinage, under which count defendant was tried and convicted, and his punishment assessed at five years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The state’s testimony tended to prove that defendant took the prosecuting witness to a house of assignation in St. Louis on but one occasion, and that they remained there for only a few hours; that this was the only time defendant had sexual intercourse with the prosecuting witness.
McDonald & Hoive for appellant.
B. F. Walker^ Attorney General, and Morton-Jourdan, Assistant Attorney General, for the state.

Opinion:
Sherwood, J.
In the State v. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, three of the members of this court agreed that the rule announced in State v. Feasel, 74 Mo. 524, holding that the taking away of a girl under age, for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with her even for a single-night, was an abduction for the purpose of concubinage within the meaning of the statute, was erroneous, and should he overruled, and two other members of this-court held in that case that a single act of sexual intercourse, would not authorize a conviction of abduction for the purpose mentioned.
A like intimation was given in State v. Johnson, 115 Mo. loc. cit. 493. In consequence of these views we hold that State v. Feasel should he disapproved. Therefore judgment reversed and defendant discharged.
All concur.