43 Iowa 181 | Iowa | 1876
A reversal of the judgment of the court below is sought, for the reason, as claimed, that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence. The defendant and the prosecutrix were both unmarried, and the latter, at the time of the alleged seduction and for sometime previous thereto, made her home at the house of the parents of defendant, but in what capacity does not appear. The prosecutrix was about twenty-two years old, and the defendant is presumed to have been several years older. If any false promises were made, or seductive arts or influences used amounting to seduction, it will be found in the following portion of the testimony of the prosecutrix: “When we were returning from meeting defendant said he had heard me remark that I never intended to get married, and he wanted me to promise to marry him, if anybody. I liad a proposal from a widower; defendant wanted me to promise not to marry him, and I told him I did not intend to marry anyway. * * * There was about three evenings we sat and talked after the family went to bed. In November, 1870, he came to my room door and said he wanted to kiss me; I told him it was no time for him to say
It is perfectly natural and to be expected that the prosecutrix should as far as possible shield herself and cast the blame, if any there was, on the defendant. There should not therefore be any strained construction put on her language in order to sustain the verdict. On the contrary, as the defendant is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable doubts there may be as to his guilt, the language of the witness should receive no
•Eeyebsed.