28 S.E.2d 587 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1944
The evidence authorized the verdict.
The defendant made the following statement: "Gentlemen of the jury, I am not much on talking myself. I never had my first date with this girl. I never saw any man that would want a date with her. I have known of her, and her character has not been so good I don't think, and I feel myself above such people as I thought she was; and she sworn about it being on Sunday. I went to church on Sunday morning, every Sunday morning and Sunday night. I plead not guilty. I haven't had anything to do with her, and never was with her on Sunday, and did not know where she lived at Mud Creek. I believe that is all I have got to say."
Several witnesses were introduced by the defendant, and one other witness by the State. The testimony of none of them materially *488
effects the testimony of the prosecutrix, as introduced by the State, or the contentions of the defendant under his statement.
It is earnestly contended by able counsel for the plaintiff in error that the evidence for the State merely shows a meretricious, corrupt transaction on the part of the prosecutrix. Counsel quote certain portions of the evidence which, if such were all the evidence, would justify their learned, eloquent, and persuasive argument. For this reason, and in order to get all of the evidence on which to base our decision of the case, we have set forth in full the testimony of the prosecutrix. This court held in Adams v. State,
It will be noticed from the testimony of the prosecutrix that she had "been going with" the defendant for six years and that she had become engaged to him some time near a week before the alleged seduction. She further testified that he repeated his promises of marriage and begged her to begged her to yield to him and that she yielded because of the promises of marriage and his begging and persuading. In Woodard v. State,
Under the facts as stated and the authorities above cited, we are convinced that the verdict is warranted by the evidence. This is true notwithstanding the following authorities cited and argued by the defendant: Disharoon v. State,
The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed. Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J.,concur. *490