Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1912-01-27

a case Of this kind Is thus described;
Upon trial for having Sc
duced and had Illicit connection with
an unmarried female, the defendant
cannot be convicted upon the testi-
mony Of the female injured, unless
she Is corroboratsd ny some other
.eyIdenee tending to cnnect the de-
iendant with the commission Of the
crime" L. o. L. Sec. 1542.
The statute first quoted I'D. Sec.
l2O76) Indicates that In order TO con
yict a defendant for "a preparation
Of the offense denounced, proof must
be adduced tending to establish the
following constituent ingredients Of
the crime, to-wlt: ~ That under a
promise OF marriage, (2) he seduced
and had illicit connection (S) with
an unmarried female, (4) OF pre-
nous chaste character. These sew
eral elements compose the particu-
lar circumstances involved in the
commission Of the crime. The man
ner OF accomplishing the mans pur-
pose, which may be designated as
the means employed, Is his pledge to
assume the nuptial state with the
woman, who, relying on the promise,
Yields 10 his solicitations TO their un-
lawful coition. These two acts on
his part viz: the promise Of mar
riage and the Illicit intercourse con-
stituto the grayamen Of the oifense.
In constituting statute OF New
York which prescribed punishment
for the crime Of seduction under
promise Of marriage and provided
that mo conviction shall be had on
the testimony Of the female seduced,
unsupported by other evidence" II
was held that conhrmatory tesu-
mony was not required to sustain all
the elements Of the oifense, but only
as to two Of the INGREDIENTS specified
In the act, VIZ the promise OF mar
rlage and the carnal connection.
Kenyon v People, 20 N. Y 1908;
Boyce, V. People. 55 ~ Y. ga; ARM
strong v. People, 10 N. Y. 3S.
A statute OF Oklahoma on this sub
ject, declaring that, "the defendant
cannot be cnvicted upon the tesh-
mony Of the person injured, unless
she Is corroborated by other evidence
tending TO connect the defendant
with the commission Of the oftense,"
was Interpreted to mean that the fe-
males testimony was required TO be
supported by other wldence as TO the
promise Of marriage and 10 the I'LL
cit intercourse and not as TO her be-
Ing unmarried or Of previous chase
character at the time Of the commits
sion OF the crime, Harvey " Terri
try II Okla, 1856 These decisions
are based on the principle that a
man accused Of the commission OF
such a crime Is charged with doing
two things, to-wlt; promising to
marry the woman whom he seduces,
and having Illicit Intercourse with her
The other elements specified In the
statute, yis; an unmarried female and |
woman OF previous chaste character
are matters OF description, deslgnat- |
ing the qualifications and attributes
which the female must possess at the
time OF the commission OF the offense
In order TO invoke the protection
which the statute affords to women Of
that class 25 Am & Eng Ency Law
(2d ed) 2iS II Ency Ex, 6O1
We conclude that the umcorroborated
Testimony OF Emma Olson, that she
had never been married was mffl- |
Client proof OF that fact
A failure to prove that ON March
20, 1910, the prosecutrlx was unmar-
rled would probably have necessitated
the granting OF new trial H. after
a Judgment Of conviction, motion !
based on that ground had been inter
posed. In the case supposed, an al
lowance Of the notion at the time
indicated would have removed the bar
OF jeopardy and authorized new
trial rs II none had ever been had
After the state had introduced It's evil
dence In chief and rested. without Of
fering proof that Emma Olson was
unmarried at the time Of the alleged
commission OF the crime. the granting
of The motion then interpoaed would
have been an acQulttal OF the deiou.
dant and he could no, have been tried
again for tho same oiiense. Courts
are wnQuesllonably anxious so to nd.
minister the law at the trial OF cause
as to suppress crime and To protect
innocence Az the directing of Jury
TO find a defendant In a criminal ac-
ton not guilty because the state had
Inadvertently omitted TO prove some
essential fact, when attention Is called
to the defect before the cause Is fin
ally submitted, would have amounted
to a miscarriage OF Justice, we con-
clpde that missing link In the chain
Of evidence may be hrulahed IN the
complained Of
The discretion Of the court was not
abused in permitting the proseoutrlN