The herald., 1896-10-30
THE STATE SUPREME COURT
The Term Closes aud the Justices
Leave
Decisions Handed Down-Laurintz Case
Passed Upon-Case of Doubt
full Evidence.

The October term of the supreme
court in this city closed yesterday and
the justices Of court, as well as most of
for San Francisco
Before leaving the city a batch of de-
cisions wehe handed down. The first,
that Of the People VS.. Laurintz, decis-
lively settles question which has arisen
more than once in this state in cases
of rape. 1t is often urged that the law
affecting the matter was framed to
protect innocent and unsophisticated
girls, and that 1t was not contemplated
that the evil-minded and corrupt girl
should benefit by a law, and be the means
of sending some man to the penitentiary,
that the law never contemplated. In the
case just decided the facts were of an
especially heinous character and Lau-
rintz was arrested, tried and convicted
in San Francisco of having outraged his
own child.
The court was called upon to pass
upon the question whether defendant
can be legally convicted Of an assault
with intent to commit rape upon the
person under the age of consent. when
the latter consents to the defendants
act.
The same question was before the
court in the recent case Of People VS..
Verdegreen (106 Cal, 21D when the rea-
soning and doctrine Of the cases now re-
lied upon by defendant was considered
and rejected, and when 1t was held (fol-
lowing People VS.. Gordon, 70 Cal, 467)
that under our statute, which makes
female under certain age incapable OF
consenting to an act of intercourse, and
making such act rape regardless of
such consent. A girl under that age is
equally incapable in law of consenting
to an assault with the intent to have
such intercourse; and that in such an
instance 1t is immaterial whether in
fact the girl consents or resists-in eth
er event defendant is guilty. The judg-
ment and order of the lower court are
affirmed.
TOO LATE TO BENEFIT.
In the matter of Hart ct al. VS.. Kim
berly ct al. carried up from Los Ange-
les, the appeal was taken May rs, 1896,
and no transcript having been filed the
respondents on August 9th gave notice
to the appellants of motion to dismiss
the appeal.
At the hearing of the motion the ap-
pellants presented affidavits to the eff
feet that one of the appellants had been
Ill, and that while in this condition hac
on June 18th. instructed her attorney
to desist from any further proceedings
in the cause, but that in the latter part
of August her attorney was requested to
proceed with the appeal. Upon these
statements appellants ask to be relieved
from their default and that they be
allowed twenty days within which
to file transcript on appeal
The court has denied the motion. No
action towards the preparation of the
transcript was taken prior to the direc-
tion to the attorney not to proceed or
since the subsequent direction to pro-
ceed, nor was 1t shown that the latter
direction was given until after receiving
the notice to dismiss the appeal.
While the illness of the appellant
might have been ground for an order
extending the time, IL such extension
had been asked within the forty days, 1t
has not been held to be sufl1cient for
relieving her from default whom thai