and no evidence that the defendant had the intent to hold any of the children to any involuntary service in this country.
"Inveigle," is defined by Worcester thus: "To persuade to something bad, to wheedle, to entice, to seduce, to beguile." He defines "entice" thus: "To allure to ill, to attract, to lure, to draw by blandishments or hopes, to decoy, to tempt, to seduce, to coax." To inveigle or persuade or entice necessarily implies that the person is persuaded or enticed, and yields assent as the result of the persuading or enticing. Yet the statute is founded on the view that the person so assenting and so inviegled may be brought here by one who knows the circumstances of the case, with the intent to hold suoh person to involuntary service, although the service be the one to which the inveigling related. The arrangement made in Italy was, clearly, a transfer of the children to the service of the defendant to earn money for him as street musicians in Chicago. They were of an age to be able to do so. The influence brought to bear upon them by their parents and uncles, and by the statements of the defendants, to induce them, to consent, in view of their condition in life and their ages and their inexperience, was enticement and inveiglement. The charge on this subject was proper and not open to exception. Moody v. The People, 20 Ill. 315, 319.
In regard to the other portion of the charge, the children, in serving the defendant as street musicians, for his profit, to the injury of their morals, subject to his control, could not properly be considered as rendering him voluntary service. They were incapable of exercising will or choice affirmatively on the subject. They were cast off by their parents, in violation of the law of Italy, and their being in this country at all with the defendant was, on ail the facts, really involuntary on their parts, although the sham form of their consent was gone through with. The charge seems to us entirely correct. Moody v. The People, 20 Ill. 315, 319; The State v. Rollins, 8 N. H. 550, 565. The observations already made, taken in connection with the testimony recited, show that there was ample evidence to warrant the jury in finding inveiglement in
