
    Brock v. The State.
    Xumpkin, J. — According to the evidence in behalf of the State, interpreted, not by its mere letter, but by its substantial import in the light of actual facts and of physical laws and the ordinary principles of human nature, the intercourse in December, 1891, was neither rape nor seduction, but fornication only. This being so, it was legally impossible that the offense of seduction could have been committed by the same man on the same woman in February thereafter. Applying the law correctly to the evidence, the verdict was unwarranted, and the court erred in not granting a new trial.
    October 8,1894.
    Indictment for seduction. Before Judge Milner. Bade superior court. March term, 1894.
   Judgment reversed.

T. J. Lumpkin, J. G. Hale, B. T. Brock and J. W. Harris, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

A. W. Bite, solicitor-general, contra.  