Harding v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 19 January 1922
• Citation: 110 S.E. 376
• Parties: HARDING . v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

110 S.E. 376

HARDING .

v.COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Jan. 19, 1922.

Error to Circuit Court, Fluvanna County.

Pleasant Harding, Jr., was convicted of seduction under promise of marriage, and assigns error. Affirmed.

Fife & Pitts, of Charlottesville, for plaintiff in error.

John R. Saunders, Atty. Gen., and J. D. Hank, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

KELLY, P. Upon an indictment charging that he did "feloniously, under promise of marriage, seduce and have illicit connection with Laura Tillman, an unmarried female of previous chaste character, " Pleasant Harding, Jr., was tried, convicted, and sentenced to a term of four years in the penitentiary. The case is here for review, and there are three assignments of error, which will be disposed of in their order.

1. It is claimed that the court erred in refusing to set aside the verdict, "because the promise of marriage was not corroborated." As a ground upon which to ask for a reversal of the judgment of the lower court, this assignment is wholly without merit.

The prosecutrix testified that the prisoner courted and became engaged to her, and that under and by virtue of the promise of marriage he seduced and had illicit intercourse with her. In corroboration of this testimony on her part it appears, chiefly from the evidence of other witnesses, that the prosecutrix and the prisoner lived in the same neighborhood; that on January 1, 1919, he began, and thereafter for some months continued, to pay her very marked and constant attention, being during that time her only beau, and visiting her about three times each week; that after she became pregnant he admitted to as many as four of the witnesses for the commonwealth that he had promised to marry her before he had become intimate with her; and that after finding out about her condition he had recommended to her that she resort to some medical means of destroying the unborn child. The prisoner himself admits, in what appears to be a spirit of utter heartlessness, that he first secured the consent of the prosecutrix to improper relations with him by his kisses and embraces, and that thereafter he had intercourse with her many times. He also admits offering to aid her in taking steps necessary to produce an abortion. It is true that he denied having made the promise of marriage, and denied having admitted to others that he had made such promise. This, however, merely raised a conflict in the evidence which the verdict of the jury settled conclusively and adversely to him. There was abundant corroborating testimony, not emanating from her mouth, to support and strengthen the evidence of the prosecutrix as to the seduction and promise of marriage. This meets the requirements of the law. Hausenfluck's Case, 85 Va. 702, 8 S. E. 683; Mills' Case, 93 Va. 815, 22 S. E. 863. The admissions of the accused, if believed by the jury to have been made as testified to, constituted sufficient corroboration. Hausenfluck's Case, supra; Flick's Case, 97 Va. 766, 34 S. E. 39; State v. Baldoser, 88 Iowa, 55, 61, 55 N. W. 97; State v. Knutson, 91 Iowa, 549, 552, 60 N. W. 129; State v. Brinkhaus, 34 Minn. 285, 286, 25 N. W. 642; State v. Phillips, 185 Mo. 185, 188, 83 S. W. 1080.

2. The second assignment of error complains of the action of the court in refusing to set aside the verdict of the jury "because the evidence established the fact that the prosecutrix was not a female of previous chaste character." This, like the first assignment, is conclusively cut off by the finding of the jury upon the evidence. The prisoner testified that one John Herndon had admitted a previous intimacy with the prosecutrix, and that the prosecutrix herself had admitted the same thing. But Herndon and the prosecutrix both denied having made any such admission; she testified most positively that she had never been intimate with any man except the prisoner; and there was much affirmative and uncontradicted evidence to show that her previous reputation for chastity was good. Her chastity was presumed (Code 1919, § 4410, and revisors' note and citations); and while, as pointed out above, his testimony made a conflict in the evidence on this point, the question thus arising addressed itself to and was settled by the jury (Mills' Case, 93 Va. 815, 819, 22 S. E. 863). The jury evidently believed her and Herndon, and disbelieved the defendant.

3. The remaining assignment is that the court erred in refusing to set aside the verdict on the ground that the venue of the crime was not proved.

The indictment was found and the case was tried in Fluvanna county. The evidence shows that both the accused and the prosecutrix resided in that jurisdiction. The accused testified that their acts of intercourse took place in her home, while she fixed the place as being near a road between her home and Antioch church, where they often...