›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Render v. Commonwealth

HungryJoeHungryJoe
edited November 2007 in News
I thought you might be mildly amused by this case. Was this me or an older namesake? I'll never tell.
The evidence of both the Commonwealth and of the appellant showed that in the summer of 1923, the Commonwealth's witnesses fixing the date, though not with positive assurance, as June 30th, and the appellant's witnesses fixing it, with more certainty, as May 26th, the prosecutrix, Ida Marie Bennett, who had known and been going with the appellant for a long time prior thereto, with a girl companion met, on a public road near her father's house, the appellant and a male companion. The reason for thus meeting was because the family of the prosecutrix objected to her keeping company with appellant. The two girls and the two boys then rode in appellant's Ford down to Beaver Dam, Ohio county, where the girl friend of the prosecutrix and the male companion of the appellant [*4] alighted and went into a picture show. It was then about eight o'clock in the evening. The prosecutrix and the appellant then drove out the Beaver Dam and Cromwell road some three or four miles and turned off into a by-road, where they remained until after the picture show had let out, a period of some two hours. On their return to Beaver Dam they found the couple which had gone to the picture show waiting for [***3] them, and the quartet then returned homewards. The girls alighted from appellant's machine before they reached the home of the prosecutrix, and finished their journey without their escorts in another machine. The above facts appear without dispute. The prosecutrix, however, further testified that while she and appellant were parked on the by-road as above set out, the act of intercourse complained of took place. The appellant denied this, and stated that at no time did he ever mistreat the prosecutrix, that at no time was he courting her, and that he only regarded her as one would a sister.
Render v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W. 914

Comments

  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    edited November 2007
    I'm sorry...What?

    Is it just me, or can no one else make heads or tails out of that blob of legalese?

    EDIT: Never mind. I had to break that blob up a bit in order to not get lost. It wasn't that funny.
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited November 2007
    I just thought it was a little amusing when they were talking about the Ford, the picture shows, and how they drove home in separate "machines". Also, my name is Robert Render and I'm from the same area of KY in which the events took place. My family has been there since before the Civil War. Further, I know all of those Bennett people. So, was it me that did this heinous deed in 1923 or an older relative?
    EDIT: Never mind. I had to break that blob up a bit in order to not get lost. It wasn't that funny.
    Well, as I said, I thought you might find it mildly amusing. Maybe it's only amusing to me. Fair enough.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Many small towns in America started out that way. Where I live it was only two or three families until the 1970's.

    My wife jokes about feeling like an outsider when she moved up here but I can't imagine why. As a girl it should have been great. Unless the locals had rules about dating outside of the family...
  • JasonJason
    Maybe you are the esteemed product of the said teenagers' coitus.
  • xenomousexenomouse
    My wife jokes about feeling like an outsider when she moved up here but I can't imagine why.
    Maybe it's because she entered an already tightly knit community, and she's one of "those new people."
  • JasonJason
    Or maybe she' jut scared of the eerie banjo music that floats down the river at dusk.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Or maybe she' jut scared of the eerie banjo music that floats down the river at dusk.
    Yeah, probably that one... Reminds me of a cartoon I once saw with a hillbilly dad telling his son he could marry the virgin down the road because: "Sorry son, but if she ain't good enough for her own family than she damned sure ain't good enough for mine!"
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited November 2007
    In passing, it may be said that counsel for appellant also complains that the court permitted the prosecuting witness to hold an infant in her arms in the presence of the jury, thus creating the impression that she was the mother of said child, and that the appellant was its father. . . .
    . . . The appellant admitted practically everything the prosecutrix claimed concerning the automobile ride of June 30 or May 26th, as the case may be, except the act of intercourse itself. However, he offered no explanation of why he should have sat for some two hours in a Ford on a lonely road in the nighttime with a girl whom he had met surreptitiously, and whom he says he was not courting. The jury meted out to him the least punishment it could, and as we perceive no error in the record prejudicial to his substantial rights, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
    It's just so heinous. I'm sorry, but I think it's funny.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Unless she was ugly.
  • xenomousexenomouse
    Did this case surface for some reason, or were you just perusing through judgments of the early twentieth century?
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited November 2007
    Unless she was ugly.
    She was sleeping around:
    . . . his chief complaint is that he was not permitted to introduce evidence by the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and by the testimony of other witnesses to show that she had been guilty of indiscretions with other men, possibly acts of intercourse with them, and that there was then pending in the Ohio circuit court a charge against another man instigated by prosecutrix and similar in all respects to the charge on which appellant was being tried. Such testimony under the facts in this case was inadmissible.
    Did this case surface for some reason, or were you just perusing through judgments of the early twentieth century?
    I've known about it for a long time. Other Robert Renders make a couple of appearances in old KY law, going back as far as 1820, mostly in probate matters. It just amuses me to see my name in an old court case. The older the better.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • xenomousexenomouse
    Out of curiosity, did the guy from the case you've been citing get convicted of having carnal knowledge of the young lady? If he did, was there some penalty?
  • Double ZDouble Z
    I find it funny how I'm pretty much just reading small town gossip, but with all the legal words it makes it much more "intellectual."
  • xenomousexenomouse
    edited November 2007
    I find it funny how I'm pretty much just reading small town gossip, but with all the legal words it makes it much more "intellectual."
    It's not gossip if it's in legalese. See the Starr Report for details. :)
    Post edited by xenomouse on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Out of curiosity, did the guy from the case you've been citing get convicted of having carnal knowledge of the young lady? If he did, was there some penalty?
    Yes. He (or was it me?) spent a couple of years in prison. 1920s prison. Not nice.
  • xenomousexenomouse
    edited November 2007
    Now I'm really curious.

    What were the logistics of the case/outcome? Was it a bench trial or jury trial? Did he had public or private defense? Did anything happen to the lady? What did the guy do when he got out of prison?

    p.s. - If a guy ever offers to let you try out a time machine, don't do it!
    Post edited by xenomouse on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited November 2007
    What were the logistics of the case/outcome? Was it a bench trial or jury trial? Did he had public or private defense? Did anything happen to the lady? What did the guy do when he got out of prison?
    It was a jury trial. The girl held a baby for at least part of the trial in front of the jury. You wouldn't expect that to inflame them very much, would you?

    He had a private lawyer. There were no public defenders in that part of KY then. Heck, there was no running water in many parts of KY then.

    There was a story that the girl's father offered to "fix" everything after the conviction if Robert married the girl. Robert refused. I don't think that really happened because I don't know of any way to fix a felony conviction, short of getting a pardon. The girl's father was supposed to be politically powerful, but I don't think that a pardon was in the cards.

    Robert served his time and then moved to Akron, OH where he worked on the railroad until he was crushed to death by a railroad car. It's true. Life was hard back then.

    I don't know what happened to the girl.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AprecheApreche
    Note to self. If ever on trial, rent a baby to hold.
  • RymRym
    If ever on trial, rent a baby to hold.
    Just don't lose it. The deposits on those things are nuts.
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    It's the new Chewbacca Defense!

    "This is a baby, your honor. The prosecution rests."

    "Guilty!"
Sign In or Register to comment.