Lima

It is charged in this case that the defendant, a married man, induced the prosecuting witness to accompany him from her home in Alameda County to San Jose, and there seduced her upon his promise, to marry her. He was convicted of seduction under promise of marriage, and from the judgment and order denying a new trial he appeals.

The points relied on for a reversal in this case, stated in the language of the appellant’s counsel upon the oral argument, are that the evidence does not show that the promise of marriage was the sole inducement which led to the girl’s seduction; second, that it does not show that the prosecutrix was of previously chaste character, and, third, that there is no proof in the record that the prosecuting witness was unmarried at the time of her seduction.

Upon the first point the young woman testified that she went to San J ose for the purpose of marrying the defendant, and that this was her reason for going there and permitting herself to be seduced by him. She also testified that he threatened to commit suicide and to kill her. Counsel’s contention that by these threats the defendant seduced her is not convincing. It is plain from the entire evidence that…