verſa, if the woman be originally taken away with her own conſent, yet if ſhe afterwards refuſe to continue with the offender, and be forced againſt her will, ſhe may, from that time, as properly be ſaid to be taken againſt her will, as if ſhe never had given any conſent at all; for, till the force was put upon her, ſhe was in her own power[1]. It is held that a woman, thus taken away and married, may be ſworn and give evidence againſt the offender, though he is her huſband de facto; contrary to the general rule of law: becauſe he is no huſband de jure, in caſe the actual marriage was alſo againſt her will[2]. In caſes indeed where the actual marriage is good, by the conſent of the inveigled woman obtained after her forcible abduction, ſir Matthew Hale ſeems to queſtion how far her evidence ſhould be allowed: but other authorities[3] ſeem to agree, that it ſhould even then be admitted; eſteeming it abſurd, that the offender ſhould thus take advantage of his own wrong, and that the very act of marriage, which is a principal ingredient of his crime, ſould (by a forced conſtruction of law) be made uſe of to ſtop the mouth of the moſt material witneſs againſt him.
An inferior degree of the ſame kind of offence, but not attended with force, is puniſhed by the ſtatute 4 & 5 Ph. & Mar. c. 8. which enacts, that if any perſon, above the age of fourteen, unlawfully ſhall convey or take away any woman child unmarried, (which is held[4] to extend to baſtards as well as to legitimate children) within the age of ſixteen years, from the poſſeſſion and againſt the will of the father, mother, guardians, or governors, he ſhall be impriſoned two years, or fined at the diſcretion of the juſtices: and if he deflowers ſuch maid or woman child, or, without the conſent of parents, contracts matrimony with her, he ſhall be impriſoned five years, or fined at the diſcretion of the juſtices, and ſhe ſhall forfeit all her lands to her next of kin, during the life of her ſaid huſband. So that
