with himself or with some other man.92 The necessary purpose may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.98 And the fact that the parties subsequently had sexual intercourse is evidence of the intent. 94

Concubinage means the act or practice of a man and woman who are not married to each other cohabiting in sexual intercourse as husband and wife.95 It is distinct from prostitution,96 and proof of a purpose of prostitution will not support a charge of a purpose of concubinage, nor vice versa.97 A taking for the purpose of sexual intercourse with several men is not a taking for the purpose of concubinage, since one woman cannot be the concubine of several men at the same time.98

Long continued illicit intercourse is not necessary to constitute the relation.99 And when a man and woman, not married, agree to cohabit with each other as though the marriage relation existed between them, without fixing any limit as to the duration of the relation, she becomes his concubine as soon as the relation begins. As a rule the taking away of a girl for the purpose of a single act of intercourse, or of having intercourse with her for a single night, is held not to be a taking for the purpose of concubinage,2 and proof

92 State v. Knost, 207 Mo. 18, 105 S. W. 616.

93 State v. Bussey, 58 Kan. 679, 50 Pac. 891.

The previous relations and subsequent conduct of the parties may be considered on the question of intent. People v. Carrier, 46 Mich. 442, 9 N. W. 487.

94 State v. Bobbst, 131 Mo. 328, 32 S. W. 1149; State v. Johnson, 115 Mo. 480, 22 S. W. 463.

One, two, or half a dozen acts of illicit intercourse, do not, of themselves constitute concubinage, but they may be considered in connection with the other facts and circumstances on the question of intent. United States v. ZesCloya, 35 Fed. 493.

95 United States v. ZesCloya, 35 Fed. 493; State v. William, 106 Kan. 778, 189 Pac. 906; State v. Overstreet, 43 Kan. 299, 23 Pac. 572; State v. Goodwin, 33 Kan. 538, 6 Pac. 899;

State v. Baldwin, 214 Mo. 290, 113 S. W. 1123; State v. Knost, 207 Mo. 18, 105 S. W. 616; State v. Bobbst, 131 Mo. 328, 32 S. W. 1149; State v. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, 19 S. W. 980.

96 State v. William, 106 Kan. 778, 189 Pac. 906; State v. Goodwin, 33 Kan. 538, 6 Pac. 899; State v. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, 19 S. W. 980.

97 State v. William, 106 Kan. 778, 189 Pac. 906; State v. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, 19 S. W. 980.

98 State v. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, 19 S. W. 980.

99 Henderson v. People, 124 Ill. 607, 17 N. E. 68, 7 Am. St. Rep. 391; State v. Bussey, 58 Kan. 679, 50 Pac. 891; South v. State, 97 Tenn. 496, 37 S. W. 210.

1 Henderson v. People, 124 Ill. 607, 17 N. E. 68, 7 Am. St. Rep. 391; State v. Bussey, 58 Kan. 679, 50 Pac. 891.

2 State v. Bobbst, 131 Mo. 328, 32 S. W. 1149; State v. Wilkinson, 121

of a single act of intercourse will not authorize a conviction of abduction for that purpose. But a taking with intent to cohabit for more than a single act of intercourse has been held to be sufficient.* In Michigan, the terms concubinage and prostitution, as used in the statute, have been held to apply to any lewd intercourse between the parties.5

The actual existence of the relation is not essential under statutes of this character. Nor is sexual intercourse."

$358. Prostitution. To sustain a conviction under a statute punishing a taking for the purpose of prostitution, it must be shown. that the taking was for that purpose. But such a purpose may be inferred or deduced from facts or acts in proof, such as that the girl was received into a house of prostitution and kept there, and that a man or men there had intercourse with her, either with her consent or by force. It is not necessary that such purpose be disclosed to or known by the girl.10

Mo. 485, 26 S. W. 366; State v. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, 19 S. W. 980.

In State v. Overstreet, 43 Kan. 299, 23 Pac. 572, the court intimated that intercourse for a single night would be sufficient, but said that it was not necessary to go that far since the evidence pointed to the fact that the girl had been the defendant's mistress for months.

3 State v. Wilkinson, 121 Mo. 485, 26 S. W. 366; State v. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, 19 S. W. 980.

4 State v. Baldwin, 214 Mo. 290, 113 S. W. 1123.

5 People v. Cummons, 56 Mich. 544, 23 N. W. 215.

Concubinage is a comprehensive term covering any illicit intercourse. People v. Bristol, 23 Mich. 118.

6 Slocum v. People, 90 Ill. 274; State v. Bussey, 58 Kan. 679, 50 Pac. 891; State v. Knost, 207 Mo. 18, 105 S. W. 616.

7 United States v. ZesCloya, 35 Fed. 493; Henderson v. People, 124 Ill. 607, 17 N. E. 68, 7 Am. St. Rep. 391; State v. Knost, 207 Mo. 18, 105 S. W. 616; State v. Bobbst, 131 Mo. 328, 32 S. W. 1149; State v. Johnson, 115 Mo.

480, 22 S. W. 463; State v. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, 19 S. W. 980.

8 United States. United States v. ZesCloya, 35 Fed. 493.

California. People v. Lewis, 141 Cal. 543, 75 Pac. 189; People v. Newton, 11 Cal. App. 762, 106 Pac. 247. Illinois. Slocum v. People, 90 Ill.

274.

Maryland. Brown v. State, 72 Md. 468, 20 Atl. 186.

Missouri. State v. Corrigan, 262 Mo. 195, 171 S. W. 51; State v. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, 19 S. W. 980.

New York. People v. Plath, 100 N. Y. 590, 3 N. E. 790, 53 Am. Rep. 236; Kauffman v. People, 11 Hun 82.

And see the other cases cited in the following notes.

9 State v. Corrigan, 262 Mo. 195, 171 S. W. 51.

The fact that the accused was the keeper of a bawdy house, and that the girl was brought to her house and permitted to remain there, is prima facie evidence that this was done for purposes of prostitution. Brown v. State, 72 Md. 468, 20 Atl. 186.

10 Slocum v. People, 90 Ill. 274.

Prostitution is the practice on the part of a woman of offering her body for indiscriminate sexual intercourse with men.11 And according to the weight of authority a person who entices or takes away a female for the purpose of having illicit intercourse with her himself alone, 12 or in order that another person alone may have inter

course with her,18 is not guilty of taking or enticing her away for the purpose of prostitution. But in Texas it has been held that the offense is committed where the abductor takes the girl for the purpose of having intercourse with her individually.14

Actual intercourse is not essential to the crime,15 and it may be committed by a woman as well as by a man.1 16 Nor is it necessary that the girl shall actually become a prostitute or be placed in a house of prostitution.17 The girl need not be unmarried unless the statute so provides. 18

§ 359. Compelling marriage or defilement. Statutes in some states provide for the punishment of any person who shall take any female, or any female over a certain age, unlawfully and against her will, and by force, menace, fraud, deceit, stratagem, or duress, compel or induce her to marry him or any other person, or to be defiled.1o The offense is to be distinguished from seduction,20 and from rape, although it closely resembles the latter crime, when the defilement consists in having sexual intercourse.2 To come within such a pro

vision the taking must have been unlawful, and against the woman's will,22 and her defilement must be accomplished by force, menace, duress, etc.28 Previous chastity of the woman is not an essential element of the offense unless made so by the statute.24