Case ID: pa-super_45/html/0594-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth v. Mackiewicz, Appellant.
    
      Criminal law—Seduction—Promise of marriage—Evidence.
    
    Argued Dec. 5, 1910.
    Appeal, No. 27, March T., 1911, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Luzerne Co., June Sessions, 1910, No. 86, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Stanley Mackiewicz.
    Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head, Beaver and Porter, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Indictment for seduction. Before Little, P. J., specially presiding.
    Verdict of guilty, upon which judgment of sentence was passed.
    
      Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
    
      James II. Shea, with him Edward A. Lynch, for appellant.
    
      W. Alfred Valentine, district attorney, with him W. H. 
      
      Gillespie, assistant district attorney, and Thomas D. Shea, for appellee.
    March 3, 1911:
   Per Curiam,

The two assignments of error are to the refusal of the defendant’s points for binding instructions, first, that the verdict must be not guilty as to the charge of seduction; and, second, that the verdict must be not guilty. It is argued, first, that the evidence of the prosecutrix negatived the charge contained in the indictment and, in effect, showed that force was used, which amounted to rape; second, that the promise of marriage was conditional; and, third, that the testimony of the prosecutrix as to the promise of marriage was not corroborated by other evidence, either circumstantial or positive. We have carefully examined the evidence relating to these three propositions and conclude that it was sufficient to warrant the submission of the essential questions of fact to the jury. No good purpose would be served by reciting the evidence in this opinion.

The judgment is affirmed.