Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1875-03-26

mother of the girl to prevent her daughter
keeping company with his son. This wit
ness told of situation in which he haG
found the girl, which was damaging tt
her reputation. Fouitwit neSseS were calico
to impeach this witness, but as none Of
them had known him since 76S the Court
said it was too far back, and did not admit
the evidence. Jno. w Fauber, the uncle
of the prisoner, testified that he had heard
Miss Hess mother say that if her daugh.
ter had taken her advice this would never
have happened. A brother of the prisoner
took the stand and glibly testified that Miss
! Ill. had consented to any advance he him.
self felt it prudent to make upon her vir-
tue. Another young man, no connection
| of the prisoner, who was introduced to
lmpeach her character, testified that he
KNEW nothing of her unbecoming lady,"
THE LEGAL AKGUMENTS-FOR THE PROS
ECUTION.
The evidence here closed. AS this is the
first under the new law, although the Sc
ducers in several cases have chosen marri-
age as lesser evil than being tried for fell
ony, we give synopsis of the points made
by the counsel, representing the Common
wealth and the accused:
Capt. James Bumgardner said that he
admitted this law was new departure in
the criminal Jurisprudence of our land and
the expediency of its enactment as a
question of policy, had been discussed b.
the press and legal profession Of the State
extensively, and numerous and general OBJ
jections had oeen urged, and he supposed
would be, by counsel for the prisoner
These were considerations more properl,
applicable to the legislature than to himself
and the jury, whose province and sulenln
duty it was to enforce the laws as they
found them in the statutes and reports
But it was melancholy fact thai previ-
Gus to the enactment Of this statute
whilst seduction under promise of mar
riage was of Comparatively Fare occurrence
in this State, yet i'll almost every instance
where it did occur, the seducer met with
violent and speedy death at the hands of
some father, brother or other near relative
who would at once take the law into his
own hands and become avenger of his
own wrongs, and, when put upon trial
for so doing would urge as an excuse that
that altho' this was conceded to be the
greatest of all wrongs and ontrages that
could be perpetrated, yet the law prescrib-
ID no punishment for it, and as this ex-
cuse had come to be regarded as valid
one by the courts and jnries, the legisla-
ture may have considered it better to pun
nish it in the mode prescribed by this stat
ute.
To convict in this case requires to be
proved, (1st) seduction of an unmarried fe-
male, (2nd) who must be of previous chaste
character (3rd) accomplished under a prom
Use of marriage, and TIN the testimony Of
the woman must be supported by other
evidence, and the Indictment found within
two years after the commission of the of
ence. AS to the first. the ''seduction''
meant misleading from the path OF virtue
and honor and poisoning the mind
of a pure and spotless woman by
the insidious wiles of a bad and depraved
man. AS to the second, a woman was
presumed by the laws of society to be chaste
and to impeach her the defence in such cases
must actually prove her guilty of spe-
cifc acts. The seduction under promise of
marriage does not mean seduction for
which promise of marriage is given as a
barter, but Il crime accomplished after the
parties have commenced those confiding
relations which follow an engagement and
promise of ma riage, and which relations
the law intends to prevent bad man turn
ing to v lie uses. The mere fact that. the
m n promising is not in a position, from
homage or 9th, rwise TO make it good. does
not release him from the punishment of the
crime committed under it. Further, the
testimony of the female shall be supported
by other evidence; but this evidence is not
required to be evidence Of the guilty act,
which can rarely if ever be obtained, but such
facts as the complainant becoming a m ,th-
Grand the accused having been a constant
visitor, We're supporting evidence, and the
admission in his letters showing, at least by
implication, the existence Of Il promise at
Il time cotemporaneous with if not anterior
to the seduction. All these were facts cor
roberative of the girls evidence.
FOR THE DEFENCE.
There was very little difference of opin-
ion as to the law of the case between the
attorneys for the prosecution and the de-
fence, (Messrs.. G.. NJ Cochran, A. Il.
Fultz and Judge Fultz but considerable
as to whether the evidence amounted to
proof beyond reasonable doubt ON each
Of the essential elements.
Prisoners counsel insisted that the de-
fence was not )nfined to cases of actual
incontinency but may prevail on the ground
of reputation alone, and that if the jury
find the female really had the reputation of
being uncllaste, the case would nos be with
in the statute, the word character being
important in this respect; and in this case
she does no come under the class describ-
ed in the act. although Illicit intercourse,
in fact, cannot be,yproved; and that she
must have relied on the promise of mar
riage and trusted to it's fulflment; and that
cases where married man had, under
promise of marriage, seduced d female,
who was ignorant Of his marriage, were
not analogous to this case ard could not
rule it. That in this case the seducer was
minor, ard could not lawfully marry in
Va. without the consent of father, mother
or GUARDIAN that the female knew this,
and knew the father would not consent.
and hence her ignorance. if any, was an ig-
norance of the law, which could make no
difference, and hence she could not have
been relying on or under valid and mu-
tually binding promise of marriag capa-
BILE Of fulhlment.
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT.