JAMES D. TEDDAWAY, Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MARYLAND COUNTY.

Argued January 23, 27, 1936. Decided January 31, 1936.

1. Seduction is defined as the act of persuading a female, by flattery or deception, to surrender her chastity.

2. It has been held to apply only to the inducing of a woman to unlawfully surrender her chastity for the first time; hence a reasonable doubt as to her chastity is fatal to the prosecution.

3. A fortiori a prosecution for seduction should fail if it be proven that the complainant has been living a lewd and lascivious life.

4. In order to be chaste, as contemplated by the statute, a woman must be innocent and virtuous; and not merely have a good reputation for chastity, but must possess actual personal virtue.

5. A confession made while an accused person in custody is interrogated by the prosecuting attorney contrary to law, is disfavored by the law, especially if the prosecuting attorney had neglected to warn accused that he must be careful what he said, as any admission would be used against him.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of seduction in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Maryland County. Judgment reversed.

D. B. Cooper for appellant. The Attorney General and R. F. D. Smallwood for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE DIXON delivered the opinion of the Court.

At the May term of the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Maryland County, James D. Teddaway, defendant, was indicted for the offense of seduction by the grand jury for the County of Maryland, Republic of Liberia. On the 24th day of May, 1934, he was arrested for the said offense, and on the 21st day of February, 1935, was arraigned, tried, and by the verdict of a petty jury was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine in the sum of one hundred twenty-five dollars, or be imprisoned for a term of eight calendar months.

From this judgment, verdict and other adverse rulings of the court below, he took exceptions; hence the cause is before this Court for review.

Before analyzing the evidence, we have thought it best, in the first instance, to review the law both statute and common on the subject of seduction. Judge Bouvier defines the term to be:

“The act or crime of persuading a female, by flattery or deception, to surrender her chastity. . . . The wrong of inducing a female to consent to unlawful sexual intercourse, by enticements and persuasions overcoming her reluctance and scruples. . . . Mere illicit intercourse is not seduction, although a promise of marriage be made; . . . there must be some promise, deception, art, or influence of the seducer whereby chastity is surrendered. . . . The complainant must be chaste at the time of the seduction, and a reasonable doubt as to such fact is fatal to a recovery.” B.L.D., “Seduction.”

“The word ‘seduction’ is of Latin derivation, and signifies a leading astray. Accordingly, seduction is defined as the act of persuading or inducing a woman of previous chaste character to depart from the path of virtue by the use of any species of arts, persuasions, or wiles, which are calculated to have and do have that effect, and result in her ultimately submitting her person to sexual embraces of the person accused. . . . Moreover, it is regarded as essential by many courts that the woman possess chastity at the time of the act in question. According to this view, the word ‘seduction’ means the use of some influence, promise, arts, or means on a man’s part, by which he induces a woman to surrender her chastity and virtue to his embraces. Hence, a woman cannot be said to be seduced, if, at the time of the alleged seduction, she was leading a lewd and lascivious life. Seduction has been held to apply only to the inducing of a woman to surrender her chastity for the first time.” 24. R.C.L. 731-2, § 2.

“Any man who shall, under promise of marriage, violate the chastity of an unmarried woman, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, shall be imprisoned for a period of not more than one year, or to pay a fine of not more than two hundred dollars.” Criminal Code of Liberia (1914), p. 32, § 113.

The definition given in our criminal code is exactly in harmony with the following citation from Ruling Case Law, which we hereby adopt :

“Promise of Marriage—. . . . But it must appear that the prosecutrix yielded her virtue in consequence of such promise and not to gratify her curiosity or lustful passion. A promise to marry and carnal knowledge of a woman may exist without seduction, and when a woman has lost her virtue and reputation for chastity, and the promise of marriage only induces a change of lovers, the promisor is not guilty of seduction, no matter what his civil liability may be for a breach of the promise of marriage. If without such promise, she would not have yielded, then it would seem that the defendant is guilty. However, it has been held that illicit intercourse permitted by a woman as a mere barter and trade for a promise of marriage is not seduction. There must be the exercise of certain influences on her affections by reason of the promise, and to some extent the bringing into play of certain arts and blandishments, reasonably sufficient, aided by the promise to marry, to have her yield to the desires of the defendant.” 24 R.C.L. 764, § 44.

From the foregoing definitions, both statute and common law, it is clearly observed that there are usually three essential elements necessary to constitute the crime of seduction, viz.: (a) There must be used flattery, deceit, persuasion by the accused in causing the female to submit to his desire; (b) There must be promise of marriage ; and (c) The female must be of previous chaste character.

Deceit and the promise of marriage are terms of readily comprehensible import, and therefore require no comment thereon ; therefore we shall proceed to define chastity:

Chastity, according to Judge Bouvier, means in the seduction statutes “actual virtue in conduct and principle.” B.L.D., “Chaste.”

Some efforts have been made by statute in some jurisdictions to give a technical definition of chastity ; but even in such jurisdictions these definitions vary. Hence it is a source of regret to this Court that there exists no statutory definition of the term in this country by which we can be guided. We are therefore compelled to adopt the common law definition as laid down by Judge Bouvier, Ruling Case Law, and other common law authorities.

The definition which we think our statute warrants is to be found in Ruling Case Law wherein we find the following:

“Chastity of Woman—It is essential to the commission of the crime of seduction that the woman with whom the defendant is alleged to have had intercourse be, in the language of the statute, of previous chaste character, innocent and virtuous, of good repute, or of good repute for chastity. Even though the statute makes no such express provision, it is held necessary to show that the woman was of chaste character at the time of the intercourse. Accordingly, a man who, knowing the unchaste reputation of a female in the community, promises to marry her, and subsequently has sexual intercourse with her by virtue of such promise, may avail himself of the character of the woman for want of chastity as a defense to an indictment for her seduction, whatever his liability may be for breach of promise of marriage. ‘Chaste character’ has been defined as actual personal virtue and not reputation. . . . Even though her prior unchastity was the result of seduction, and amounted to statutory rape, it has been held that she is not of chaste character, for this purpose. Hence, where there were repeated acts of intercourse with the defendant, all of which took place under a promise of marriage, it was held that a woman could be seduced but once and that seduction took place only at the time of the first voluntary act of sexual intercourse on her part, after she was able to understand its nature and comprehend its enormity.” 24 R.C.L. 767, § 46.

Having thus passed upon the law controlling the crime of seduction as far as we have been able to collect it, we will now proceed to summarize the evidence which we find in the record.

Witness Rebecca Keah, the private prosecutrix, when on the stand, testified to her being acquainted with James D. Teddaway, the defendant, and gave the following further testimony in answer to the question propounded by the prosecuting officer :

Q. “The Republic of Liberia charges him with having seduced one Rebecca Keah; do you or do you not know anything about said charge; if so please tell us what you know?”

A. “Yes, James Teddaway, the defendant, approached me to be his friend in the year 1933. I informed my mother of his request. She refused and told me not to let defendant make a fool of me. During the time my mother was in town he never visited my home, but as soon as he heard that my mother had gone to the farm, then he came to me and asked me, ‘How about the thing I told you?’ I told him that I did not agree; he then informed me not to he afraid and if anything should happen he would marry me; then I said, ‘Alright, since you say you would marry me I will let you do your business.’ That was in the month of November. As soon as he got through doing his business, then I missed my periods in November and December. In January of the next year I called him, and informed him, that I was ‘in family way,’ and what had he to say? Then he asked if he was the only one who had known my body ; I replied to him, `Yes.’ Then he said, ‘All right.’ I left and went to Grand Cess. When I arrived at Grand Cess, my sister said to me that it appeared that I was pregnant. I then informed her yes. She asked me who did it. I told her James Teddaway. At this time there was a drill held at Grand Cess where he attended, and he asked Mr. Elliott to give him money that he might go down the coast. Mr. Elliott told him to wait until the following day, and on the following day when he went there Mr. Elliott told him to wait until he got through his work. After which Mr. Elliott called him and said, ‘This girl said something to me which I do not quite understand,’ and he asked which girl; and Mr. Elliott said, ‘Rebecca Keah.’ He asked, `What did she say to you?’ Mr. Elliott told him that she said, ‘It is you who seduced her.’ He paused after this, and admitted, saying, ‘Yes, it is I.’ Mr. Elliott then asked what would he do in the matter? He then said to Mr. Elliott, ‘When I go home if my people say that I must marry her, then I will marry her.’ I then left Grand Cess and returned to Garraway. The next day in Garraway James Teddaway and myself went to Justice George Tubman’s office, when Justice Tubman asked me about the same matter. I then explained same to him. On asking James Teddaway he started to deny it, and said that he would take an appeal to the Cape. That is what I know.”

Q. “Miss Witness, was anyone else present when the defendant made the confession that you say he made?”

A. “Yes, Sunday Weah, James Keah, justice Tubman and others.”

In corroboration of this statement of the private prosecutrix, one James Keah, the brother of private prosecutrix, took the witness stand and testified to his being present at an investigation before one George Tubman, a justice of the peace, and some others, when the defendant admitted having had sexual intercourse with the private prosecutrix and that he agreed to marry her.

One Sunday Weah, who was also present at the investigation of justice of the Peace Tubman, testified to defendant’s admission of having carnally known the private prosecutrix, and to her having alleged at the time his promise to marry her.

In rebuttal of, the evidence on the part of the prosecution as analyzed supra, the defendant took the witness stand and testified in answer to the succeeding question as follows:

Q. “The Republic of Liberia, charges you with having on the isth day of November A.D., 1933, committed the crime of seduction, by persuading, enticing, flattering, and deceiving the said Rebecca Keah to surrender unto you her chastity. Do you or do you not know anything of said charge and your innocence thereof? If so please state.”

A. “Yes, in 1934 during the month of January, we held our general review at Harper City, and during the month of April which was the quarterly parade we went to Grand Cess where we performed our duty. I am the first Sergeant of the Company ‘Howard’s Guards.’ When we were drilling, Mr. Elliott told me that he wanted to see me after drill. After drill I went to Mr. Elliott’s home with my roll book. I did not meet him home. I was compelled to sleep in Grand Cess because I was anxious to see Mr. Elliott, being the Major of the Third Battalion. On Saturday morning I again went to Mr. Elliott’s home. On reaching there I met the family sitting quietly, and I handed in my delinquent list. He asked me to sit down. He then commenced to ask me as to whether I knew the girl Rebecca Keah, I said, ‘Yes, I do because she and I attended the same school at Garraway.’ Then he said again, `Rebecca Keah is seduced, and upon my asking her she informs me that it is you who seduced her.’ I then laughed. Then Rebecca’s other sister Julia Keah got up and pointed her finger in my, face saying, ‘You are going to marry our sister.’ In fact the girl was not present during this period. I denied the fact that it was I who seduced the girl. When denying, Mr. Elliott got up and addressed Mr. Tubman, who is also related to the family, suggesting that he should compel me to marry his sister-in-law. Then Mr. Tubman went out. To my surprise I met a man by the name of Wesley Keah who arrested me, and held me by the back of my neck pushing me to go toward the Customs. He held me in custody. From the Saturday morning up to six o’clock that evening I was held in custody, and when I asked for water he said, `You must agree to marry my sister before I hand you water,’ and I . replied him that I would have to die thirsty rather than admit something that I am innocent of. On the very evening we left for Garraway, Mr. Tubman and Wesley Keah. We arrived at Garraway at I 2 o’clock in the night precisely, and Mr. Tubman asked me as to whether I was still denying. I said, ‘Yes, I am.’ He then had me put in custody. On Saturday morning he told Commissioner Jones’ messenger to bring me out. I was forcibly brought out. When we reached Mr. Tubman’s yard, these messengers told me to sweep. I refused, but Tubman told them to force me, and when I was forced I took the broom and swept the yard. After sweeping I was again put in custody. On the following morning (Monday), he told them again to carry me for an investigation of the matter. When they carried me to Mr. Tubman’s home, then he called the people to be present. The girl was there also. Mr. Tubman asked me if I knew the girl sexually. I said, ‘No, I do not know her sexually.’ He then again said, Van you question the girl?’ I replied, `Yes, I have many questions to ask her.’ I never admitted to Mr. Tubman that it was I who seduced the girl, and then I began to ask the girl if she could produce a notice or letter written her by me during our correspondence. She did not answer this question. I again asked her if she could point out the bearer between her and myself. She did not answer this question. Her mother was there and plenty Garraway boys. Samuel Mooney, junior, Eugene Davies, Jacob Toe, and others. Mr. Tubman then said since the girl had said that I seduced her he took the girl’s words, and he told me that I was guilty. I told him that I was not guilty, and I have been seeing people seduced, and when they arrest the person who seduced them it must be done under a writ of arrest, but I did not see a writ before I was kept in custody. When saying this he said I know too much law, and he told his messengers to keep me in custody. After that he told them again to bring me out and forced me to work on the street, and when I asked him what was the meaning of my working, he said, ‘You must agree to marry this girl. If not, I will send you to the Cape.’ I said, ‘All right. There are better men at the Cape who will understand what I might say.’ He then told his messengers to force me to work because I was contradicting him, until Sunday when we arrived at Harper. This is what I know.”

The following question having also been put to the defendant, his answer was as follows:

Q. “Do you or do you not know of any circumstances tending to show that the said Rebecca Keah was not of a previous chaste character during the year 1933? If so, please state.”

A. “Rebecca Keah and another crowd of girls in 1933 went to their lovers and in the morning when we went to school, Rev. Price asked them where they had been last night, and they refused to tell him; but upon being flogged they told. This Rebecca Keah named two lovers, first John Y. Sidi, and Albert S. White. The others named their lovers.”

In a further attack on the chastity of the private prosecutrix, the following questions were also propounded to defendant, who replied thereto, as follows:

Q. “Do you or not know anything of Rebecca Keah and one Hall G. Willah? If so, please state what you know.”

A. “Yes, Rebecca Keah and Hall G. Willah, when we went to the ball room she is the only lady he danced with, and again Mr. Willah whenever he gets ready to go to Rebecca Keah and comes down from the mission, he would always give his room key to Josiah Kolenky and tell him where he is going. I have seen this myself. Josiah and myself stay in the same house.”

Q. “Have you ever at any time used enticement or in-sinuating arts to overcome Rebecca Keah?”

A. “No.”

In further proof of the unchastity of the private prosecutrix, the following witnesses were produced by the defendant who testified respectively as follows: Alfred C. Tull, while on the witness stand, said that he was present at the home of one Miss Agnes Teddaway on one occasion when Hall G. Willah, known to him as “Baby Hall,” was saying to Miss Teddaway that he had to leave Garraway in 1934 because he had done something. He wanted to go to Monrovia before the court opened. Miss Teddaway asked him what it was. He said he had done something in Garraway and asked her when a woman doesn’t see her course for two months, what is the cause. Miss Teddaway asked him who it was, but he refused to name the woman in the first instance. Miss Teddaway insisted on knowing the person. He gave her name, but he, the witness, did not know the person.

Agnes Teddaway then took the stand and corroborated the testimony of full in detail, and gave the name of the private prosecutrix, Rebecca Keah, as the woman whom Hall Willah had said he had impregnated.

Josiah Kolenky also testified to the fact of Hall Willah’s having said at Miss Agnes Teddaway’s home that he had impregnated a girl by the name of Rebecca Keah. He also testified to Hall Willah’s telling him of his relation with the private prosecutrix.

Eugene Davies, the fifth witness, testified to the unchastity of the private prosecutrix, stating that his friend, one Albert White, told him that the private prosecutrix was his wife; that is, that he had carnal intercourse with her.

The prosecution in attempting to impeach the witnesses adduced by the defendant in harmony with the notice he had given had the private prosecutrix and two of the witnesses who had testified on the part of the prosecution recalled. But in the opinion of this Court, said effort was futile as said witnesses only denied certain references made concerning them by certain witnesses for the defense.

Thus in summarizing the evidence we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential elements in the case of seduction, in that not even the testimony of the private prosecutrix tends to prove that the defendant enticed, persuaded and flattered her ; but that he simply told her that he wanted her to be his friend or sweetheart; that she at first refused to be his sweetheart, but on his approaching her the second time and promising to marry her if anything should happen, that is, if she became pregnant, then it was she consented to be his friend and sweetheart. We regret to have to say that no other al.: legation of the promise to marry appears on the face of the record in this case.

The evidence further shows that defendant confessed having committed the offense, but that the said confession, as shown in the records, was made in the court of the justice of the peace when the defendant had been taken into the custody of an officer of the law, and was being interrogated there by the County Attorney contrary to law. A confession under the circumstances is disfavored by law, especially where the defendant was not cautioned by the prosecuting officer that he should be careful what he said, as whatever statement he made would operate against his interest.

We will not lose this opportunity of saying that marriage is a very sacred thing; and a genuine promise to marry, under cover of which a man, by deceit and enticement, induces an innocent girl who has put her trust and confidence in him to surrender her chastity, is an offense that when proven we do not believe we can find words sufficiently strong to condemn. But the courts of justice will not lend their aid to a party who having consciously embarked on an immoral life, and thereby becomes pregnant, endeavors thereafter to pose as a paragon of virtue, and have her paramour criminally punished for the alleged seduction.

The defense having conclusively placed on the record that the unlawful intercourse began with no promise of marriage, and that the private prosecutrix was of unchaste character, which statements are unrebutted save by the denial of the private prosecutrix herself, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment of the court below should be reversed and defendant discharged from further custody, and allowed to go without delay; and it is hereby so ordered.

Reversed.