State v. Pace

• Decision Date: 28 May 1912
• Citation: 74 S.E. 1018,159 N.C. 462
• Parties: STATE v. PACE.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

74 S.E. 1018

159 N.C. 462

STATE v. PACE.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 28, 1912

Appeal from Superior Court, Craven County; Carter, Judge.

H. N Pace was convicted of seduction under promise of marriage and he appeals. Affirmed.

Where a witness had been impeached, evidence of declarations similar to his testimony given at the trial is admissible in corroboration.

Moore & Dunn, for appellant.

Attorney General Bickett and Assistant Attorney General Calvert, for the State.

BROWN J.

1. At the conclusion of the testimony of Henriette Dougherty, the prosecutrix, who testified for the state, the defendant filed a plea in abatement averring that the said indictment could not be maintained in the county of Craven, but should be tried in the county of New Hanover where the alleged act of seduction, according to the testimony of the said witness occurred. His honor overruled the plea. The defendant excepted.

The findings of the judge show that, at the preliminary hearing of this case when the defendant was bound over, all of the facts set out in the plea of abatement appeared in evidence and the defendant was present and represented by counsel. He knew at the time when the indictment was tried and before the jury was impaneled what the testimony of the prosecuting witness would be. He had ample opportunity to file his plea in abatement in apt time.

It is well settled that a plea in abatement or a motion to quash a bill of indictment made after the plea of not guilty is entered is only allowed in the discretion of the court. His honor declined in his discretion to permit the plea to be filed. The exercise of his discretion is not reviewable by us. State v. Jones, 88 N.C. 672. Assuming that the county of New Hanover was the proper venue, the defendant, having full knowledge of the facts which the state relied upon, is deemed to have waived the point by not filing his plea in abatement in apt time. State v. Holder, 133 N.C. 709, 45 S.E. 862; State v. Woodard, 123 N.C. 710, 31 S.E. 219.

2. It is contended by the defendant that there is not sufficient corroborating evidence to the testimony of the prosecutrix. The statute provides that "the unsupported testimony of the woman shall not be sufficient to convict," but it in no sense limits or defines the character of the corroborating testimony required. That is to be determined by the ordinary rules of evidence.

There are three essentials to a conviction under this statute: First, the criminal act; second, that it was the seduction of an innocent and virtuous woman; and, third, that it was done under promise of marriage. The first is admitted by the defendant; the second is proven practically by all the evidence in the case, and is really not disputed so far as the character of the woman is concerned; the promise of marriage is testified to by the prosecutrix and corroborated fully by her declarations made before the seduction as well as afterwards.

It is settled that statements to others that the prosecutrix and the defendant were going to be married are competent for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of the prosecutrix that the defendant had offered and promised to marry her. State v. Kincaid, 142 N.C. 657, 55 S.E. 647; State v. Whitley, 141 N.C. 823, 53 S.E. 820.

The evidence tends to prove that the defendant was a married man working in...