Vitro

The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of seduction, under promise of marriage, of an unmarried female of previous chaste character and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

It is claimed that the evidence does not show that the prosecutrix was of previous chaste character. The prosecutrix gave her testimony through an interpreter and counsel and the interpreter at times fell into the had practice of putting questions and answers in the third person. The prosecutrix testified: “I had sexual intercourse with the defendant, ’ ’ stating the time and place and that it was her first act of sexual intercourse with him. Thereafter the following testimony was given by her: “Q. Why did she permit the defendant to have sexual intercourse with her during January, 1919? Mr. Maddux: ’18. Q. 1918. A. Promised to marry her. Q. Had you ever had intercourse with any other person 'before that time? A. No, sir.” It is logically argued that the word “intercourse” does not necessarily mean “sexual, intercourse,” but, following as it does immediately after the use of the term “sexual intercourse” in the preceding question, there can be no doubt that the witness…