State v. . PaceState v. . Pace
1. At the conclusion of the testimony of Hen-riette 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 Crаven, blit should be tried in the county of New Hanover, where the , alleged act of seduction, according to testimony ’of the said witness, occurred. His Honor overruled the plea. The defendant excepted.
Thе 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 imрaneled what the testimony of the prosecuting witness would be. He had ample opportunity to file his plеa in abatement in apt time.
It is well settled that a plea in abatement or a motion to quash a bill of indiсtment 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 reviewablе by us.
S. v
.
Jones,
Assuming that the county of New Hanover was the proper venue, the defendant, having full knowledge of the faсts which the State relied upon, is deemed to have waived the point by not filing his plea in abatement in aрt time.
S. v. Holder,
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 tо 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 donе under promise of marriage. The first is admitted by the de *464 fendant; tbe second is proven practically by all tbe evidence in tbe case, and is really not disputed so far as tbe character of' tbe woman is concerned; tbe promise of marriage is testified to by tbe prosecutrix and corroborated fully by ber declarations made before tbe seduction as well as afterwards.
It is settled tbat statements to others tbat tbe prosecutrix and the defendant were going to be married are competent for the purposе of corroborating tbe testimony of tbe prosecutrix tbat tbe defendant bad offered and promised tо marry her.
S. v.
Kincaid,
Tbe evidence tends to prove tbat tbe defendant was a married man working in tbe railroad shoрs at New Bern, and tbat bis wife and children were living with bis father at Richmond; tbat tbe prosecutrix was employed as а waitress at a hotel, and tbat she first became acquainted with tbe defendant in February of tbat year; tbat shе testified positively tbat she did not know tbat be was a married man, and tbat be represented himself as a single man, and repeatedly offered to marry ber; tbat they went on excursions together to Morehead City and other places; tbat they were engaged to be married in January; tbat be told ber tbat be could not wait until Jаnuary, and desired .her to marry him in August; be called regularly to see ber on Sunday and Wednesday nights; they frequently went out tоgether in public; they went to Wilmington on Sunday to get married, tbe defendant stating tbat be bad prepared to have tbe marriage license ready and tbe marriage take place.
At Wilmington they went to a hotel. Tbe defendant registered as “H. M. Pace and wife”; they were assigned to a room, when tbe alleged seductiоn was accomplished. Immediately afterwards tbe defendant said tbat there was some miscarriage about tbe marriage license and they would have to go somewhere else to be married. He constаntly made excuses, deferring tbe marriage.
All of these details were communicated by tbe prosecutrix tо others and corroborated by them after she found tbe defendant could not marry ber. Tbe promise of marriage and tbe attention of defendant to ber were made known to her friends before tbe trip to Wilmington.
*465 Wе think that the evidence corroborates the testimony of the prosecutrix in every particular, and that upon all the evidence the verdict of the jury was well warranted.
It is well settled in this State that when a witness is impеached upon cross-examination or otherwise, and it is necessary to sustain the testimony by corrobоrative evidence, proof of declarations made to others similar to the testimony given in evidence on the trial may be proved by the witness who made them and the persons to whom they were made.
S. v. George,
In additiоn to this character of corroborating evidence, we think there is evidence of admissions by the defendant, and of his conduct towards the prosecutrix while he was in jail, which tends to corroborate the charge of the State that the seduction took place under promise of marriage, and the prosecutrix being ignorant of the fact that the defendant was married.
Upon a review of the whole record, we find no error which we think is of sufficient importance to justify us in ordering another trial. We have carefully examined' the remaining, assignments of error, and find them without merit.
No error.