The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1913-04-15

| show, by the testimony of an examin-
ing physician, the physical condition
of the prosecutrix ten days or two
weeks after the alleged commission of
the crime. But it was error to exclude
the testimony offered by the defend
ant to explain or refute the apparent
corroborative testimony of such physi-
clan. The rulings complained of left
the physicians testimony unexplained
and tending to corroborate the prose
| cutrtx without affording defendant the
| offered defense thereto or his explain
| alton thereof as was sought to be
ELECTED by cross examination of the
prosecutrix herself.
90 Defendant should have been
permitted to fully examine states
witness concerning whether said wit
| ness had made certain statements to
the magistrate from whom she as
| complainant had procured a warrant
| to issue for the arrest of the prose-
| cutrix for alleged grand larceny, two
days before defendants arrest on this
charge, when during the trial of this
case she had testified that such war
| rant had been procured merely that
prosecutrix might be taken into Gus
| tody so that thereafter prosecutr1x
could with safety institute this prose
| cution for rape against defendant. The
ference that the prosecutrix may have
been actuated by bad faith In insti-
tuting these proceedings, and full
cross examination should have been
allowed of the states witness concern
ing such arrest of the prosecutrix so
caused under alleged pre- re-arrangement
with the witness testifying; and the
exclusion of the cross examination Of
fered was error.
go The crime if committed was
done while the wife and other children
OF defendant were temporarily absent
on visit The, state offered testi-
mony showing opportunity and from
which the inference might be drawn
that defendant had kept the prosecu-
trix at home to prostitute her; and
such was the states theory of why
she did not leave with the wife and
other children, as 1t had been previ-
ously arranged she should do. The
wife was permitted to testify that she
did not take prosecutrix with her be-
cause "she was afraid to-, but was
not permitted to relate the specific
reasons for her fears and reasons why
the prosecutrix did not accompany
her on the visit Defendant sought to
show that the reason for such fears
was because OF Information obtained
shortly before, from the prosecutrix
and Others, tending to establish her
anu generally
and causing the belief In the defend
ant and wife that prosecutrix might
become ungovernable and troublesome
In such respect il so taken; which
testimony was excluded. This evil
dence offered should have been receiv-
ed, and defendant should also have
been permitted to testify to his ex-
planation Of how prosecutrix came to
remain at home with him.
CO.. Upon cross examination de-
fendant was examined concerning the
death of his first wife, who had died
more than ten years before, and from
the matters so brought out the Jury
may have concluded that her death
may have been due In part to his re-
fusal to furnish her with doctor Our
ing childbirth. This and much other
irrelevant testimony SO ELECTED during
his cross examination may have been
prejudicial.
(Syllabus by the court.)
From a Judgment Of the district
court of Stutsman county. Coffey, j.,
defendant appeals.
Reversed, opinion by Goss, J
Burke, r., (dissenting)
Andrew Miller, attorney general
Geo. M. McKenney. states attorney OF
Logan county, and Geo. w. Thorpe
and Russell Chase, of Jamestown. of
counsel for the state; w. s. Lauder,
Of Wahpeton, and John Knauf of
Jamestown, attorneys for appellant.
n
1t is rather hard to understand why
even wealthy Chicago woman should
pay $1,000 for dog. unless perchance