Joseph L v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Parties: Joseph L,. Hopper, plaintiff in error. v. The State of Georgia,defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

54 Ga. 389

Joseph L, . Hopper, plaintiff in error. v. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1875.)

Criminal Law. Seduction. Fornication. Before Judge Underwood. Gordon Superior Court. August Term, 1874.

Hopper was indicted for seduction as follows: "For that the said Joseph L. Hopper, in the county and state aforesaid, on March 1st, 1872, did then and there by persuasion and *promises of marriage, and by other false and fraudulent means, seduce one Sarah A. Guy, a virtuous unmarried female, and did then and there, by the means aforesaid, induce her to yield to his lustful embraces, and allow him to have carnal knowledge of her, contrary to the laws of said state, " etc. The defendant pleaded not guilty. The jury found him guilty of fornication. A motion for a new trial was made upon the following grounds, to-wit:

1st. Because the court erred in charging the jury "that although the indictment did not allege that the defendant was a single man, yet if the proof satisfied them that the defendant was a single man, and that Sarah Guy, the prosecutrix, was a single woman, and that the defendant had been guilty of having had illicit intercourse with her at any time within two years next preceding the preferring the bill of indictment, then they would be authorized to find the defendant guilty of fornication, this indictment being a good indictment for seduction, and unobjected to on that ground."

2. Because the court erred in refusing to charge the jury, "that the defendant could not be found guilty of fornication unless the same was alleged in the bill of indictment, and sustained by the testimony."

3. Because the court erred in allowing the state to prove that the defendant was a single man over the objection of defendant, it not being alleged in the indictment that he was a single man.

The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.

J. A. W. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

A. T. Hackett, solicitor general, for the state.

McCay, Judge.

The only question in this case is, whether it was competent for the jury to find the defendant guilty of fornication under the charge in the indictment. It is not denied that the offensecharged does not include, and necessarily include, either *adultery or fornication, or both; but it is said that it does not appear from the indictment which. The indictment does not allege whether the defendant was, at the time the offense was committed, married or...