The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-10-01

WEAVER V. THE STATE OF ALA
 BAMA.
 Indictment for Seduction.
 1. Seduction; evidence, when admis sibie.--On a trial under an indictmen for seduction where there Is evidenc' that the commission of the offense wal procured bx means of a promise o marriage, 1t Is competent for the prose cutrix to testify that the defendant told her that he loved her.
 2. Same; immaterial testimony.-Ir such a case 1t was not material wheth- CT the child of the prosecutrix was born and the promise made In the county where the prosecution was be- gun.
 3. Same; when evidence admissible as bearing on promise of marriage Tn such a case, the brother of the prosecutrix may testify that he heard the defendant tell the prosecutrix that he loved her. as such testimony tends to corroborate her on this point and was a circumstance which with others might authorize the jury to believe that he was leading her to believe that he was going to marry her.
 q Same; evidence of fiight.-In such . case, 1t may be shown that the de- fendant was not in the community where the prosecutrix lived. after the pffense was committed, until brought back to answer the indictment, as tending to show that he realized his danger after learning of her condi- lion.
 s. Same; admissibility of letters from defendant to prosecutrix.-In such a cAse. letters written by the defendant 10 the prosecutrix after the commission of the offense, and received by her through the usual channels, are admis- sible, as tending to show the relations that had existed between them.
 6. Same; argument of counsel.-In such a case, remarks of the solicitor to the jury on the word 'beast" used in A letter received by the prosecuterix from defendant. in the place of best, that the defendant characterized him. ssif by the use of the word beast. are mere expressions of opinion, and unobjectionable.
 |. Same; charge to jury.-In such 2 case, where there Is evidence that thu proeecutrix yielded to the defendant al the result of a promise of marriage, charge which instructs the jury tha saf the evidence satisfies you beyond ; reasonable doubt that Mollie Jerkin surrendered her virtue and had sexua 1utercourse with defendant as a resuI of A promise of marriage made to he by defendant, but that said promis' was made by defendant and said Molli' Jerkins surrendered her virtue in 1898 then your verdict must be for the de Ssndant," is properly refused as sh may have surrendered her virtue il 1898 and yet if she yielded to him Il 1901 she would be entitled to the pro tection of the statute.
 8. Same; same; chastity of prosecu trix.--In such case charge is erron eous which instructs the jury to int the defendant not guilty if he had in tercourse with the prosecutrix prio to the time mentioned by her, as sh may have been mistaken in the exac date and if she had previously fallei she may have reformed and if she thel yielded to him under promise of mar riage she would be entitled to The pro fection of the statute
 g. Same; same; same.-In such case d charge Is erroneous which instruct the jury that they could infer the un chastity of the prosecutrix because tn State did not produce testimony as t her character.
 l0 Same; same; corroboration O