
    The State against Edward Findlay.
    
      Columbia,
    
    1802.
    Apersonseda. tingtiwayfrom anrfer Sixteen and deflovvC? es her after-wards, without ths eon-orntguar<í¡ans! yearsMmprí-ther'ho^mar ries her or-r,ot, under the statute of & PhiUp&Ma-ry9 c. s. made state.03 Ín tllis
    MOTION in arrest of judgment.
    ryhe defendant was indicted on the statute of S Philip' an<^ ^arUi c* 8. made o£ force in this state, for taking away aS*r^ under sixteen years of age, and deflowering her, without the consent of her parents. This statute enacts, that _ “ u any person above the age of fourteen years, shall un~ “ lawfully convey or take away any woman child unmarried w within the age of sixteen years, from the possession and ** aSa^nst the will of the father, mother, guardians or go- “ vernors of such child, he shall be imprisoned two years, 1 J “ or fined, at the discretion of the justices ; and if he de- ,, n . , . . , r. fiowers her, or without the consent oi her parents contracts' “ matrimony with her, he shall be imprisoned five years, or a fined, at the discretion of the justices j and she shall forfeit all her lands to the next of kin during the life of her <e husband.”
    It appeared, from the report of the judge who tried the ■cause, (Tkezevant,) that the parents of the girl were poor people, and upon observing too great a degree of familiarity between the defendant and their daughter, forbad him. their house, and desired him to have no kind of intercourse with her, as she was a child incapable of judging for herself, and much too young to think of matrimony. That the defendant, however, contrary to their injunctions, still came about the house, as he alleged, to pay his addresses to her, and at length seduced her to go off with him, and had lived openly with her ever since, but whether married or not there was no proof; the parents however believed, and the presumption was, that they were not married. That in frequent conversations with different persons who censured him for his improper conduct in seducing away a child from her parents, he declared, and indeed in some degree boasted, that she was old enough, or woman enough for him, with other expressions of the same import. Upon this testimony, the jury, without any hesitation, found him guilty of the offence stated in the indictment.
    The present was a motion in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the indictment did not, upon the face of it, state this young woman to be a maid of the description and quality that the statute was meant and intended to protect ; and, therefore, that the defendant was not subject to the pains and penalties of the act.
    Mr. Egan, in support of the motion,
    argued, that the statute of Philip and Mary was made for the protection of heiresses and young ladies of fortune, who were in possession or in expectancy of lands and tenements, or other estates of great value, and to prevent their being taken off or married to persons of an inferior degree or condition in life; and that it was not meant or intended to extend to other persons than those mentioned in the preamble of the statuteP So wit, heiresses and young ladies of quality«
    
      Mr. Stark, tlie state-solicitor,
    observed, that to give the statute under which the defendant had been indicted the construction contended for, would be to subject a very large portion of the. young women of our country to the seductive arts of lewd and unprincipled men; to the destruction of the peace of families, and the ruin and misery of the unhappy objects themselves, who have been or may be hereafter seduced and deceived. That it was to redress and. prevent this great and growing evil, that the statute was made, which should not be confined to the wealthy and opulent alone, but extended to the poorer classes, who needed the aid of the law more than those in opulent circumstances.
   The Court,

after hearing the arguments, was of opinion, that there was not the least ground to arrest the judgment' under this conviction. That the act in question was a wise and salutary one, well calculated to preserve the peace of families, to check and punish loose and disorderly men, and to promote the security and happiness of young inexperienced females of all descriptions, whether poor or opulent.That when this act, which had so long stood the test of experience and wisdom in another country, was extended to Carolina by our ancestors, they could never have intended to discriminate or confine its operation to heiresses or persons of quality only, as there were then but few, comparatively, of that description in this quarter of the world. And. although the preamble of the statute seems to relate to that class of young women more than any other, yet when the enacting clauses come to be attentively considered, they are sufficiently broad and extensive to include and protect all the young women of our country, of every degree and condition whatever.

The motion in arrest of judgment was therefore refused, and the rule discharged.

All the Judges present.

As the defendant was unable to pay any fine, he was sen-? tenced to five years’ imprisonment, agreeably to the directions of the statute, as an example to all others of the same 'dissolute character.

N. B. This was the first conviction which ever took place in Carolina, under the statute of Philip and Mary, for this oifence, and it is presumed it will have a lasting and salutary effect.

It may not be amiss here' to observe, that it does not follow that because a statute has been a long time dormant, it is therefore to be considered as obsolete. The contrary is evinced in this conviction and sentence. 
      
       The act of assembly of South Carolina, extending the British statutes to this country, and among others the acts of 5 Philip and Mary, e. 8. pgs^sili ia 1712, nearly a century ago. r
     
      
       An act of parliament is not repealed by nonuser; as long as it remains unrepealed, the judges are bound to carry it into execution, 2 Durnf. and East, 275.
      
     