
    Commonwealth, v. Ostrum, Appellant.
    
      Criminal law — Reasonable' doubt — Charge.
    On tbe trial of a criminal ease it is not reversible error for tbe court to instruct tbe jury in tbe very language of tbe law, and to stop witb tbat.
    Submitted April 28, 1918.
    Appeal, No. 404, Oct. T., 1918, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Aug. T., 1917, No. 404, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Samuel B. Ostrum.
    December 12, 1918:
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Indictment for seduction under promise of marriage. Before Gorman, J. See Commonwealth v. Bemey, (2) 262 Pa. 176.
    Verdict of guilty upon which judgment of sentence was passed. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned, amongst others, was in failing to properly instruct the jury with reference to the law upon the question of reasonable doubt.
    
      William A. Gray, for appellant.
    
      George A. Welsh, Asst. District Attorney, and Samuel P. Rotan, District Attorney, for appellee.
   Per Curiam,

The relation established by the prosecutor and the defendant subsequent to their admitted engagement to marry, was the sole question in controversy in the court below, and this was submitted in a charge that was free from reversible error. Its sufficiency on the question of reasonable doubt has been settled by the Supreme Court in Com. v. Berney, No. 181, January Term, 1918, filed July 17, 1918.

The judgment is affirmed, and it is ordered that the appellant appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called, and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence or any part of it that has not been performed at the time this appeal became a supersedeas,  