The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-06-19
Supreme Court Decisions =
* ): .: * :: 4: i: ): 4: X * X X

" -
State of North Dakota. plaintiff and
respondent. VS.. Leroy II. Bancroft, de-
PENDANT and appellant.
l. Under an information which
charges that the defendant did COM
init the crime of rape in the first de-
gree AZ follows. to-wit: thai at said
time and place said defendant, a, in
ana upon B. VIOLENTLY and f%cloniously
dld make an assault. and here the said
then and there violently by
force. overcoming her resistance and
against her will, feloniously did ravish
and %carnally know. and did then and
there have sexual intercourse. and she.
the said b did then and there make
resistance against the aforesaid acts
OF said defendant and said resistance
Was ny the defendant overcome nv
force, and she the said E being then
and there a female. and not then and
there the wife of said defendant. "A
Nerdl't of guilty of rape in the sec
"nd degree. or of assault with intent
tn commit ape. may be returned: and
such an information will sustain sucl,
a verdict even though Sec. $500 of the
C"des of 1905 Classics the various
ways In which tn" crime MAJ he com-
united. and provides that rape in the
first degree exists where the female
"resists. but her resistance is over
come by force or Violence" and that
the crime of rape in the second de-
gree exists where Ssh is prevented
from resisting by threats Of immediate
and great bodily harm accompanied bv
apparent power of execution"
=. In such a case the threats may
he physical as we'll as verbal. and may
no prior to, as we'll as at the time of
the consummated act.
3. The nature and amount Of the
resistance which must be made by the
female in the case of rape. is depend
ent nron tho circumstances of the
case. and on the possibility of success.
tSyllahus by the court,
Appeal from the district court of
stark county. Crawford. 7.
Defendant was convicted of the
crime of rape in the second degree
and appeals.
Bertha Grueneich. respondent. VS..
Christoph Gru"neich. appellant.
L. In an action brought by the wife
against the parent of her husband
for the alienation of such husbands
affections. no recovery can be had un-
less there is clear proof that the de-
f"ndaht acted maliciously and with a
purpose to ALLEVIATE. If a husband
leave his wife and is induced so to do
by the advice and counsel of. or nv
y ny, IL par 1llS, Ine D1T.
eht will not be held liable unless it is
made to appear that in giving such
advice or counsel he acted in had
faith, and not honestly to promote the
interest n welfare of his child, and
with the intention to so ALLEVIATE. The
law III such cases recognizes the natu-
raj and proper solicitude Of a parent
for the welfare and happiness of his
child. ever after the child has married
and left the parental roof.
>. In such A case, Instructions
which absolutely ignore the question
of malice n intention. and lead the
jury to infer that a verdict may be
returned against the defendant in the
a bsence Of a finding of such facts, are
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the district court of
Mcintosh county. Allen. j.
Action by wife against the father Of
her husband. to recover damages for
the alienation of her husbands affec-
tions.
Verdict and Judgment for the plain
tiff. Defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Opinion by Bruce. ].
Christian Nitschka. plaintiff and re-
spondent. vs.. John Geiszler, defen-
dant and appellant.
In an action for damages for per-
sonal injuries received by plaintiff at
the hands of defendant. held:
/. The only Issue for the jury vas
the amount of damages assessable. the
proof by defendants own testimony
establishing the commission of a var
ton and malicious assault by defend
ant upon plaintiff.
?. PLAINTIFFS recovery of $1,000
sustained as not excessive.
; The m of the complaint
were sufficient to admit the proof Of
fered. and certain rulings on testi-
mony approved.
Syllabus by the court.
Appeal from the district court of
Mcintosh county. Allen. j.
Affirmed.
Opinion by Gnss. ].