The defendants assign as error the court’s refusal to allow their motions for judgments as of nonsuit.
The only evidence before the court and jury was that offered by the State which tended tо establish the following facts: The defendant Robinson sepаrated himself from his wife in December 1969, and during the month of January 1970 he was residing in a trailer at Kanoy Trailer Park, Kernersville, Forsyth Cоunty, North Carolina. Three witnesses for the State testified that on 27 January 1970 they went to the defendant Robinson’s trailer betweеn the hours of 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. where they saw the defendants Robinson and Brooks in bed together. These witnesses testified that they saw а lady’s robe thrown across a chair in the living room, and that fоod was cooking on the stove, and the dining table had been set for two people.
Emily Carol Robinson testified that shе saw the defendant Brooks getting into Robinson’s blue Corvair at Triаd Manufacturing Company, where the defendants worked, three or four weeks prior to the date she saw them in bed together in the trailer and, also, on 27 January 1970 she saw a presсription bottle in the trailer bearing the name of Mary Lou Brooks, and on the same occasion she saw a pаir of women’s boots in the defendant Robinson’s blue Corvair.
Mrs. Charles Bryant, who resided in the Kanoy Trailer Park, testified that she saw the defendant Brooks go to Robinson’s trailer on three seрarate occasions, in the nighttime, in the month of January 1970 аnd remain inside the defendant Robinson’s trailer for approximately three hours on each occasion.
The dеfendants contend that the evidence tends to show only а single act of illicit sexual intercourse, and that such is not a violation of G.S. 14-184.
*435
In
State v. Kleiman,
“A single act of illicit sexual intеrcourse is not fornication and adultery as defined by G.S. 14-184, S. v. Ivey,230 N.C. 172 ,52 S.E. 2d 346 ; for, as stated in S. v. Davenport,225 N.C. 13 ,33 S.E. 2d 136 , ‘ “Lewdly аnd lasciviously cohabit” plainly implies habitual intercoursе, in the manner of husband and wife, and together with the fact of not being married to each other, constitutes the offense, and in plain words draws the distinction between single or non-habitual intercourse and the offense the statute means to denounce.’
“But, as stated further by Seawell, J., in the opinion in the Davenport case: ‘It is never essential to convictiоn that even a single act of illicit sexual intercourse be proven by direct testimony. While necessary to a conviction that such acts must have occurred, it is, nevertheless, competent to infer them from the circumstances presented in the evidence. . . .”
In the instant case the evidence tended to show some association betweеn the defendants for a period of three or four weеks. Evidence that the feme■ defendant was seen to enter and rеmain in the male defendant’s living quarters for approximatеly three hours in the nighttime on three separate occasions in the month of January 1970 must be considered in conneсtion with the evidence of what occurred in the male defendant’s trailer on the night of 27 January 1970 and, when so considered, we hold the evidence sufficient to carry the case to the jury. State v. Kleiman, supra.
The judgments are affirmed.
Affirmed.