
    Myron D. Wood, plaintiff in error, vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
    (Atlanta,
    January Term, 1873.)
    1. Criminal Law — Seduction.—A married man, known by a female of ordinary sense to be such, may be guilty of the crime of seducing said female, but under section 4305 of the Revised Code, which provides that any person, who, by persuasion and promise of marriage, or other false and fraudulent means, shall seduce, etc., a married man, known by the woman to be such, cannot, if she be a woman of ordinary sense, be guilty of seducing her by “persuasion and promise of marriage.”
    2. Same — Same—Indictment.—Whilst we recognize the law to be that a married man, known to be such by the woman seduced, may be guilty of seduction by other false and fraudulent means than by persuasion and promise of marriage, yet a count, in an indictment which charges seduction by false and fraudulent means, and sets forth as one of such means a promise of marriage made by a married man to an unmarried female of ordinary sense, who knows he is married, is not a good count, unless it also contain charges of other means, false and fraudulent, sufficient in themselves to constitute the offense, and said count, though then a good count, is only so because of the charge of said other false and fraudulent acts.
    3. Same — Same—Same.—A charge of seduction which sets forth that the defendant was a teacher of a school and the girl seduced his pupil, a minister of the gospel and the girl a member of the church of which he was the pastor, that he told her he loved her, that she was congenial with him, that he had prayed over their relations, and that it would not be 'wrong for her to submit her person to him, by means of which, etc., is a good charge.
    4. Same — Same—Guilt Depending on Facts. — The guilt of the accused will depend on the proof and on the actual influence under all the facts, including the several characters of each, *and her confidence in him and the effect which such statements had in truth upon the girl.
    
      . 5. Same — Same—Instruction.—On the trial of an indictment for seduction, it was error in the Court to charge the jury that whilst the woman seduced must be a virtuous, unmarried female, yet the test of her virtue was whether she had or had not before that time ever had illegal sexual intercourse with a man.
    
    6. Same — Same—Same.—When, on a trial for seduction, the female alleged to have been seduced was the sole witness to the principal facts, and in her evidence she declared that for two years after the alleged seduction before the trial, she had lived a life disclosing great moral turpitude, hypocrisy, and the Court was asked, in writing, to charge the jury that one ground for disbelieving a female witness was, that if the witness disclosed in her testimony acts done by her and habits of life pursued .by her which exhibit moral turpitude in herself, and the Judge refused:
    Held, That this was error, and the fact that the prisoner on trial is charged to have been the cause of said acts, and to have joined in them does not alter the rule.
    7. Same — Same—Same.—If a written requ.est be made to charge, legal in its terms and pertinent to the matter on trial, it is the duty of the Court to charge at least the substance of it; it is not enough, if by inference it may be covered by some other charge, unless that inference be very plain and noticeable.
    8. Same — Same—Evidence—Res Gestae. — On a trial for seduction,' acts, and sayings between the parties, bearing upon the principal fact, both before, at the time of, and after, are admissible in evidence as inducement, as part of the res gestae, and as explanatory and in mitigation or exculpation of the principal fact.
    9. Same — Same—Verdict—Duty of Court. — Under an indictment for seduction, it is competent for the jury to find the defendant guilty of adultery or adultery and fornication, if the proof would justify it. Seduction is the higher offense, and necessarily makes the other, and it was error in the Judge on the written request of the defendant’s counsel to refuse to point out to the jury in his charge the difference between these offenses.
    Warner, Chief Justice, dissented.
    Criminal law. Seduction. Indictment. Presumption. Witness. Charge of Court. Res geste. Adultery and fornication. Before Judge Hopkins. DeKalb Superior Court. March Term, 1872.
    *Myron D. Wood was placed on trial for the offense of seduction. The indictment contained three counts. The first alleged “that the said Myron D. Wood, in the county aforesaid, on June 27th, 1868, did, by persuasion and promise of marriage, to-wit; by then and there promising to marry one Emma I. Chivers, when his, the said Myron D. Wood’s wife, to whom he was then married, should die, he, the said Myron D. Wood, then and there declaring and stating to said Emma I. Chivers, that his, the said Myron D. Wood’s wife, to whom he was then and there married as aforesaid, was in bad health and would not live long, and that he, the said Myron D. Wood, loved her, the said Emma I. Chivers, better than any other woman living, that he thought that she, the said Emma I. Chivers, and he, the said Myron D. Wood, were congenial, and that they, the said Myron D. Wood and the said Emma I. Chivers, would marry as soon as his said wife should die, and he, the said Myron D. Wood, then and there persuaded the said Emma I. Chivers to yield herself to his lustful embraces,. and to allow him to have carnal knowledge of her, the said. Emma I. Chivers, by telling her, the said Emma I. Chivers, that it was not wrong for her to yield herself to him, and that his passion for her was pure and holy, and the said Myron D. Wood, then and there, by the promise of marriage and persuasion as aforesaid, did seduce her, the said Emma I. Chivers, she then and there being a virtuous, unmarried female, and did then and there, induce her, the said Emma I. Chivers, to yield to his lustful embraces,” etc.
    The second alleged that he, the said Myron D. Wood, “did, by false and fraudulent means, seduce one Emma I. Chivers, she then and there being a virtuous, unmarried female, and induce her to yield to his lustful embraces, and allow him, the said Myron D. Wood, to have carnal knowledge of her, the said Emma I. Chivers, to-wit: by then and there promising to marry her, the said Emma I. Chivers, when his, the said Myron D. Wood’s then wife, should die, and that his wife could not live long, and was in bad health, and that he, *the said Myron D. Wood, loved her, the said Emma I. Chivers, better than any woman living, and that his, the said Myron D. Wood’s present wife, was only so in name, and that he and his said wife were not congenial, and that it was not wrong for her, the said Emma I. Chivers, to yield herself to him, the said Myron D. Wood, as he and she, the said Emma I. Chivers, were congenial; that he, the said Myron D. Wood, had made it (her yielding herself to him) the subject of prayer to God, and that it was not wrong for her to do so, as his wife, then married to him, would die soon, and they, the said Myron D. Wood and Emma I. Chivers, would then marry, and that his, the said Myron D. Wood’s, passion for her was pure and holy, and that he, said Myron D. Wood, would not harm her, the said Emma I. Chivers; he, the said Myron D. Wood, when making said promises of marriage, and using said persuasions, and said false and fraudulent means to seduce her, the said Emma I. Chivers, being then and there a minister of the gospel, and her pastor, and her preceptor in school, and by means of such persuasions and promises of marriage, and by the false and fraudulent means used by the said Myron D. Wood as aforesaid, did then and there induce her, the said Emma I. Chivers, to yield to his lustful embraces, and allow him, the said Myron D. 'Wood, to have carnal knowledge of her, the said Emma I. Chivers,” etc.
    The third alleged that the said Myron D. Wood “did, by persuasion and promises of marriage, and by other false and fraudulent means, seduce one Emma I. Chivers, then and there being a virtuous, unmarried female, and the said Myron D. Wood, then and there, by persuasions and promise of marriage, and other false and fraudulent means, to-wit: that he, the said Myron D. Wood, loved her, the said Emma I. Chivers, better than any other woman alive, and that it was not wrong for her, the said Emma I. Chivers, to yield herself to him, and that his then present wife was only so in name, and that she, his then present wife, would not live long-; that he thought that she, the said Emma I. Chivers, and he, the said Myron D. Wood, were congenial — he, the said Myron *D. Wood, when using said persuasion and making such promises of marriage, and using said false and fraudulent means to seduce her, the said Emma I. Chivers, being then and there a minister of the gospel, and her pastor and her preceptor in school, and by means of such persuasion and promises of marriage, and by the false and fraudulent means used by the said Myron D. Wood as aforesaid, did then and there induce her, the said Emma I. Chivers, to yield to his lustful embraces,” etc.
    The defendant filed a special plea in bar of said indictment, as follows:
    “That at the time the offense charged in said indictment is alleged to have been committed, the defendant was a married man, and was then living and cohabiting with his lawful wife, and had been so living and cohabiting with his lawful wife for more than eleven years; that he' then had, and at the time the offense is alleged to have been committed, did have a lawful wife and three children, with whom he was then, and at the time of the trial, still living, all of which facts, stated in said plea, were well known to Emma I. Chivers, the female alleged to have been seduced. At the time of the alleged seduction, and for several years previous thereto, the-said Emma I. Chivers being then and there a matured woman of about nineteen years of age, of sound sense and discretion, and of good education, and who was- then and there well acquainted with the family of the defendant, and who could not have been a party to a contract of marriage with the defendant, and to whom the defendant could not have made a valid or lawful promise of marriage.”
    The Solicitor General demurred to the plea. The demurrer . was sustained, and the defendant excepted.
    The case went to the jury upon the plea of not guilty.
    The following evidence was introduced:
    EOR THE STATE.
    Emma I. Chivees, sworn: My name is Emma I. Chivers; I live in Decatur, DeKalb county; I have lived here since I *was a child; I am twenty-one years old; I am acquainted with the defendant, Myron D. Wood; I knew him before he was here as pastor, when he lived in Yorkville, South Carolina, when he came to visit here; I am not certain, but think he came hei;e in July of 1866; he taught school in 1867; he brought his family in 1867; I knew him then; he was a preacher of the gospel — a Presbyterian preacher; he had charge of a Presbyterian church; he taught a school — a mixed school — male and female; I was living over across the railroad when he came; we moved from there in the fall of 1867, I think in October, to a house between Mr. Wood’s house and Mr. Winn’s; I don’t know how far from Mr. Wood’s; nearer to Winn’s than Wood’s house; I was fifteen, going on sixteen, in 1866; in 1867, I commenced going to school to Mr. Wood; I did not go to school to him when living at the big house, near depot; I began when we moved over to the house between Wood’s and Winn’s; I don’t think we lived there quite a year; we moved then to Mr. Wood’s, into his.family; Mr. Wood said to mother, he wanted me to go, so he could better instruct me, and she could do the work in the family if she would; it was at his suggestion that we moved to his house; I did belong to the church; I joined in 1866 — in March, I think; Mr. Burkhead was pastor then; I think in March, 1866, I joined the Presbyterian church; there is one Presbyterian church here; that is the same church that Mr. Wood was pastor of; the first time he ever took any liberties with me, I was going to school; first time I noticed that he cared particularly for me; if I passed him he would smile.very kindly; then he would give me little presents, such as candy and grapes; he seemed to take a good deal of notice of me; then he asked mother to put me under his charge; he would not charge tuition for me, as I had no means to pay, as I had no father; he said he wanted to raise me as a daughter; he wanted to just raise me his way; that the intellect I had he wanted to cultivate; he knew mother’s ambition was for me to be a first class teacher; he said if she would keep young men from visiting me— (Testimony objected to by defendant’s counsel; *“no such charges in indictment.” Objection overruled.) Mr. Wood told mother to place me under his charge; that I had a great many studies, and he thought young men would distract my attention, and he wanted her to say to them, “I had rather not receive young men’s company;” I was young, and he wished her to pledge that the young men should be kept away; and then young men began to think it strange of me refusing their company; my mother agreed to do as he wished; I continued going to school to him; whenever he saw me do anything likely to produce remark, he told me kindly of it, and said he wished me to avoid anything, that was wrong; I tried to do all I could to please him, seeing he was so kind and good, and when he told me to do anything, I thought it my duty to do it; sometimes when I started from school, he would go with me; we passed home by Mr. Mason’s; sometimes he would walk with me towards home; he would compliment me; I thought he was good and kind to me; I thought it was all right, I did not suspect anything wrong by it. He told me that I must have known that I was his favorite in school; he said one of the young ladies asked who was his favorite. (Defendant’s counsel object: “We find nothing in the indictment of this sort, and wish the proof confined to the charges in the indictment.” Judge: “Consider the testimony in, till witness is through, then you can point out special objections, what it is you object to, or object as we go along, as you please, but there can be no conviction on anything but what is in that indictment.”) Mr. Wood said he reckoned I knew I was his favorite; he wanted me to trust him wholly; he wanted to keep me from annoyances as I had no one to depend on; he talked that way. He told me one day, that he had something particular to tell me, he wanted me to meet him at Mrs. Morgan’s, to stay there till after school, that he had some writing to do, and for me to stay till about nine o’clock, and not to leave till he was down there; he said that Clinton Ballinger was staying there, and for me not ■to encourage him to go home with me; that he (Wood) wanted to escort me home, that he wanted to have a long talk with me; he wanted *to go home with me himself, he would come down after me and escort me home; I staid there and Mr. Ballinger said, he would go up to the school house, where Mr. Wood was, and would be back directly; we sat and talked, and after awhile he and Mr. Wood came back to Mrs. Morgan’s; I got up to go; then Mr. Wood said, “Miss Emma, you are going my way, you need not trouble Mr. Ballinger to go, I will go with you.” We came out of Mrs. Morgan’s, and came down by Mr. Kirkpatrick’s shop and turned and went down the street to the end, then turned to the left, then turned to the left again by the Presbyterian church, towards Mr. Wood’s house; he talked to me and said how much he loved me; that we were congenial; he had never met with any one that he took so much interest in as he did in me; he had a secret he would like to tell me, if we were more intimate than we were at that time; he asked me if I would consent to let him have access to my person; he thought it would not be wrong; I might think it was wrong for young men, but it would not be wrong for him; he loved me; it was not lust; his love was pure; he took so much interest in me; he said he had married when he was young; when he became a minister the professors had advised him to marry; that all ministers ought to have wives, and Miss Beck (now Mrs. Wood) was the only woman he loved; he thought he loved her then •; he asked her to marry, and they were married; he loved her better than any other woman till he saw me; he had tried to live happy but their feelings were not congenial; when he saw me he knew he could safely trust me in anything, and wanted me to give him my entire confidence ; there was no happiness for him; there were many difficulties between him and his wife he would tell me of if I allowed him to become intimate with me; when we got by the lane, near his house, between his house and a lot, he stopped and caught my hands and held me and told me to decide; and to return his love; I cried very hard; I did not know what he meant; I was bewildered ; he said he would not hurt my feelings for the world; he put his arm around me; he said he would not harm me; hów much he loved me; all this he *thought of before; he knew it was not wrong; he made it a subject of prayer; had prayed to be directed right; his conscience did not smite him for the course he was taking; he believed if it had been wrong, providence would interfere, some way to prevent it; he had that confidence in God; he believed some obstacles would have been in the way of our intimacy; he felt of my person; I cried and tried to get away from him; we went on towards Mr. Mason’s; he talked to me and said his wife did not love him and refused to have anything to do with him; he had no one in whom he could place confidence, and begged me to trust him wholly, and not to be so reserved; that I must know if he did anything wrong it would hurt him as much as me; I might know he would not injure himself ; he told me then he never could love another one as he loved me; I felt sorry for him and that he was not treated right; I thought it (further intimacy) was wrong; I thought if I could do anything for him I ought to do it; as we came on home he asked me if I would allow the same privilege again; I would not consent; I was sick; I said, “please let me go home;” I was-so bewildered; he kept talking; he seemed so sad that I had no confidence in him; when we got to the gate he said, “Emma, you will kiss me;” I held down my head; I was crying; I did not know hardly what I was doing; he caught me in his arms and kissed me; I ran into the house; I thought about it; I cried about it; I thought .it was me that did not know about its being right or not; the road we went was not the nearest way home; he said he had a heap to talk with me; he wanted to have a long talk with me; next’ morning he wrote a letter and handed it to me in school and told me he did not mean no harm; if he had taken liberties he wanted me to pardon him; he would do so no more; I thought he spoke so kind I thought it was wrong, as he was so much my superior; I thought he knew better than I did what was right or wrong; I told him I did not have hard feelings towards him; he sometimes came after he had been to Atlanta; he would come and sit with me; first time he had intercourse was when he had been to Atlanta; he told me to sit up waiting *for him, and he would come back and come to my house; I sat up and waited for him; he came in and sat down, showing me something about my lessons; he said he was feeling bad with head-ache; he asked if I objected to him lying on the bed; I said no, if he was sick he ought to lie down; he lay down on the bed a while; he talked to me, then he said, “Emma, come and sit by me and rub my head;” I sat on the bed, reclining on my elbow; I rubbed his head ; he kept talking to me, then he asked me if I would object to him being intimate; he told me how much he loved me; he knew it was not anything wrong; it was not lust; his feelings were pure and good; then he put his arms around me, kissed me, and hugged me, and had intercourse with me then; he told me he wanted to marry me, and I need not think it was anything wrong; he intended to marry me some day; his wife was sick, she could not live long, she would die in two years, if not sooner; I said he told me he would marry me; that was in 1868; that was before he had intercourse with me; he told me that he would marry me, both before and after the intercourse; he told me that several times before; he got me a ring — a gold ring; he said that would be a bond between us; he intended to keep his promise, and that would be a bond between us; that was after the intercourse. (Counsel for defense: “We hope this will be ruled out. We object to all that took place after the alleged seduction.” Judge: “No promise made after the alleged offense can be given in evidence. Everything that occurred between them, either before or after, may go in evidence to throw light on the whole transaction.) He gave me the ring after the intercourse; that night he told me he intended to give me a ring before the intercourse; he gave me the ring afterwards; I do not remember how long after; it was next time after he went to Atlanta. (Defendant’s counsel: “Please your Honor, is this' within the rulings of the Court?” Judge: “Yes, sir.”) _I gave him the ring back just before I left his house. (Why?) He fell out with me; he did not want me to leave his house and go away; he said he would take the ring and destroy it; he said he threw it in the well at his house ; the *intercourse was at our house; he had more connection with me there. (Defendant’s counsel objected. Overruled.) I don’t know when was next connection, or how long it was; we did not live very long at that house after the connection; we did not have connection a great many times at that house; we moved from there to Mr. Wood’s house; he told me he wanted me to go to his house, so he could instruct me better, and look over me better; it was more convenient to instruct me in my lessons ; he wanted me to go to his house and not be separate from him; my mother went with me; I boarded at his house for a while; I went to school during that time to him. (Was there anything improper there?) Yes, sir; that was in the latter part of 1868, soon after I went; it was done in his .study; it was up stairs when we first went there ; there is a passage two or three feet wide; his study was across from my room; I do not know how.often; as often as he could get a chance to be with me; he came in his study and stayed there, and would call me in; I stayed in my room across the passage; he would tell me beforehand that he wanted me to come to his study; I took my books as if to study; sat in the study awhile; mother thought he was assisting me with my lessons; my mother was cooking for Mr. Wood at that time; I don’t remember how often he had intercourse with me at that house; we lived there about a year and a quarter; we went in 1868, latter part of summer, and left there in latter part of 1869; during the time I was there he had intercourse with me; from there I moved home to the house by the railroad; I lived with my mother and sister at home; I have no father living; father died in 1858. (Who lived at that house?) Mother, my sister and I; sister is younger than I; I do not know how many times we had intercourse after we moved home, but several times; I remember oné time in the front room at our house; only once or twice in our own house. (How many times did he make promise of marriage before the first time of intercourse?) I do not know how often; I know it was two or three times; (Why did you yield to him ?) The reason was I thought *he would not do anything wrong, because he was such a good man, preacher, pastor, my teacher; I never had seen or known him do anything wrong; he was so much my superior, he would direct me right, even if I had scruples as to what was right or wrong; I thought he ought to know better than I did; he ought to know better than I what was right or wrong. (What was the influence or motive that led you to yield to him?) Because he was my pastor, and as I thought he was so noble and pure; I had every confidence in him as he was my pastor and teacher; I had perfect confidence in him; I thought everything he said was right; if he told me it was not wrong I thought it was not wrong; I was eighteen at the time; I thought he would marry me when Mrs. Wood died; I knew she was not in good health and I thought that of course he would marry me if she died; I had seen her and knew she was not in good health; I firmly believed he would marry me; I have a child. (Who is father of that child?) (Question objected to; question allowed.) Mr. Wood — Myron D. Wood — is father of that child. (Had any other man ever had intercourse with you before defendant?) Never any young man, no male person ever had intercourse with me but Myron D. Wood. (Where is the child?) In Ordinary’s office. (Defendant’s counsel object, to the exhibition of the child to the jury, a child born two years after the alleged offense. Judge says: "All such testimony has been ruled out.” The child cannot be used for such a purpose.) All these transactions took place in DeKalb county; I have never been married.
    • Cross-examined: I am twenty-one years old; I have lived in Decatur since I was a little child; I don’t know when I came, nor what year; my age is recorded; I speak from a record; I suppose my parents know when I was born; I was too small to know when I came here; when we first came we boarded, I think about a month; I remember when we came to board at Mrs. Morgan’s hotel; I recollect that well; I have a brother younger than I and a sister younger; they were both living when I came here; I don’t recollect the year *that I came. (Was it not in 1853 ?) No, sir! I think my brother was born that year; I was not old enough to know when he was born; my sister was younger than he; she was born in Washington, Wilkes county; I think we boarded with Mrs. Morgan about a month; I am not certain; we then moved to ou'r own house until we moved to the Wadsworth house; I never went to school till I went at Decatur; the first school I went to was either Miss Missouri Stokes, or Miss Hannah Davis; I went to both those ladies; I can’t tell how old I was; I don’t know the first male teacher I went to; I went to several; I went to my cousin, Mr. Adams; I went to Dr. Holmes, and Mr. Mann assisted him; I did not go to' Mr; Cleveland ; I did not go to Mr. Cochran; I don’t know what I studied when I went to Mr. Adams; I commenced studying Latin with Mr. Wood in 1867; Mr. Wilson assisted him — he was a missionary ; I believe Miss Beck also taught in school that year; I reckon I was considered a young lady then; I did not study Latin till 1868; I have studied philosophy with Mr. Hunter; he taught during the war, I believe; I commenced to study Latin just before Mr. Hunter broke up; there was an interval; it was after Mr. Hunter came back from the war that I studied philosophy; I believe I went to school to him; I studied philosophy, but not Latin nor algebra under Mr. Hunter; I acted in some dialogues during Mr. Hunter’s time; I commenced studying classics under Mr. Wood; 1 studied French — I studied nearly all the higher branches; I joined the church in March, when Mr. Burkhead was pastor; I had attended church from childhood regularly; I was a young lady, I suppose, when I joined the church; I had been raised in Sunday-school all the time; Mr. Kirkpatrick taught me; Mr. S., Miss W., Mr. Moore and you, Mr. Candler, taught me; Mr. Willard was superintendent; these are Christian people; they are intelligent; I was instructed by them; I generally knew my lessons; mother made me learn lessons in the Bible; I repeated chapters from the Bible from memory; I was well instructed in morality, as to what was right and wrong; I was not brought up to *allow privileges to men; I knew all that before I saw Mr. Wood; I knew the rules and proprieties of society; I knew that young ladies should not allow privileges to young men; I knew the Bible prohibited it; I did not know it was against the law; I knew nothing about the law; I did not know that intercourse with men was forbidden by the laws of the land; I knew it was wrong; I knew all the commandments; I knew them by memory; I knew the commandment, “thou shalt not commit adultery;” I knew it my way, but not the way it has been explained to me since; I thought that committing adultery related to married persons. (Did you not know that that forbid fornication?) No, sir, I don’t think I did; I thought adultery was criminal intercourse of married persons, and I asked Mr. Wood about that; I don’t know where I learned it; I thought adultery did not apply to a single person; I can’t remember where I learned that; I did not think it was right for unmarried persons to have intercourse; I knew it was all wrong before I saw Mr! Wood; in 1865 we lived over in our house; I think the large house near the railroad; in 1866 we lived on the same place in a little outhouse, back part of the lot; we rented the dwelling to Mr. Moore; he went there in fall of 1865; we remained there' during 1866, and 1867; Mr. Echols lived in the large house; in the fall of 1867 we moved to the Wadsworth house; I think Mr. Wood moved to your (Mr. Candler’s) house; Mr. Moore had two daughters; we went to the Wadsworth place when we moved; then Mr. Moore moved there to our house; I think we went to the Wadsworth house in October or November, I am not certain which; I don’t know when Mr. Echols went away; I believe he went to your (Mr. Candler’s) place; the house we lived in had two rooms, a stack chimney in the middle; it was very near to Mr. Winn’s; Miss Stokes and Miss Gay lived near; Mr. Wood lived on a line with our house, but .on another street. (Was there any partition in the house?) There was a closet on one side, and a door on the other; door on the right going in, on the north side; there is a north door and a south door, going out of the house; I don’t *know if there was a lock or a button on the door; I think there was no lock on the door; Mr. Wood and I were in the room next this way, (east,) the room next Mr. Wood’s; I paid no attention to have it fastened; mother was in the other room; brother was in there, sister was in there; I don’t know the time of night, it was about nine o’clock, I think. (When did you say the arrangement was made?) I testified that he told me he was going to Atlanta, and when he came back he would come there, he wrote that in a letter; I burnt the letter; he told me always to burn his letters; he said he would burn mine and for me to burn his; he said it would not be right if the people found it out — it would not look right; I burnt them because he told me; I knew it was wrong to keep them; I knew all about letters; I wrote compositions; I took first prize here in school for composition; Mr. Wood told me the day before that he would meet me that night; he wrote it to me; he had different ways to send letters; he never sent but one by mail, that was when he went to General Assembly; that letter came through this office, directed to my mother; mother received the letter; she did not see die contents; she opened the envelope, and inside was an envelope directed to me; she asked what it meant; I told her it was a letter from Mr. Wood; General Assembly was in Kentucky, Louisville, I think; a letter came addressed to my mother; I won’t say the Assembly was in session; that was what Mr. Wood had gone up there for; I suppose the letter came from Louisville, Kentucky; I don’t remember exactly; I know it came from him; that was in 1870; I believe in April; all the other letters, not- sent by mail, he would deliver to me in school; he had the letter in his hand, he put that in the book; held paper in his hand till I got through the lesson; put the letter in and handed the book back to me; there were other young ladies there; sat on the same seat; they had no opportunity to see the letters; he did not hand the letters in the book in the class ; I carried my book out home, and no other girls saw the letters; that is the only mode of delivering letters to me, except the one I received by mail; mother knew Mr. Wood came to the house *that night; I don’t know if brother knew; my mother is a well educated and intelligent woman; has been about a great deal; Wood said he wanted to lie down on the bed; he spoke of giving me lessons; she went out; I was going to school then; Mr. Wood had gone in the evening after school; I don’t know how he got back; at nine o’clock he walked back; he told me he walked back; he first went to show me my lessons ; he was translating Latin: we were reading Latin grammar, translating English into Latin and Latin into English; then he lay on the bed and asked me to rub his head; he commenced talking to me; he first told me 'to put my hands on his head; he put his hands on me; never had hugged me before except in.the lane; I never said anything to my mother; he kissed me, felt of my person; I never got off the bed; I did not think it was wrong for Mr. Wood, because he told me it was not wrong; he had such an influence over me, I thought what he said was right; I did not feel that it was exactly right; I told him that it was not right, that mother had told me not to allow privileges to gentlemen; I don’t know whether there was a light in the room or not; of course there was a light before; I had a light translating; I suppose the light was burning; I know there was a lamp burning and a shade over it; I don’t think it was put out; nothing said about putting it out that I know of; I don’t know how old my brother was; he is not now in his twenty-first year; he is not as old as I am; he is not passed twenty; I think he is in his nineteenth year; he will be nineteen in June, I think; my sister is sixteen, I think; I don’t think we had a clock at that time; we once had a time-piece. (Did you change position on the bed?) No, sir; I did not undress; I laid down on the bed; I did not lie down myself, he pulled me down by him; I was lying down when the intercourse took place. (Did you make any fuss?) He told me not to make any noise; I don’t think I did call for mother, nor make any noise for her to hear me; I never had intercourse with any other man till that time; I had gentlemen to put their arms around me, but not to hug me; I mean nothing more serious than having arms around me; he is the *only one ever felt of my person in a lascivious way; I swear that positively; the first that ever felt of my person, I solemnly swear it; no other person ever felt of my limbs, I solemnly swear it. (Has any one taken hold of your legs?) I solemnly, positively swear it that no other ever had; a male person never kissed me privately; I say to this jury, nobody ever did; I do not solemnly swear that no young man ever kissed me out of presence of others; I never took the hand of a young man and put it in my bosom; I never did; I never exposed any portion of my person to any young man— not my legs; I never agreed to meet any young man for any improper purpose; I never engaged to meet any young man at improper hours either. (Did you do any of these things at the academy?) No, sir; I think no young man ever kissed me privately; young men have kissed me publicly like they would kiss any other girl; no young man ever felt of my person. (Did you never exhibit your person exposed?) No, sir; I never did that in my life, sir; first improper suggestion Mr. Wood made to me was after being at Mrs. Morgan’s; I think Mr. Ballinger boarded there then; that night Ballinger went to the academy where Mr. Wood was, and in Mr. Ballanger’s presence Mr. Wood said he would not trouble Mr. Ballinger to go with me; the nearest way home was along the public street; the way we went it was round; up to that time Wood had never made improper suggestions to me; I did not object to going with him; I knew it was not the nearest way home, and we walked that back way; I don’t suppose I ever saw a young lady and gentleman go that way late at night; we did not come the public way; we went in the lane; we stopped in the lane; he said he wanted to have access to my person. (Did you not say in direct examination that you had no sense to know what he meant?) I did not exactly know what he meant by it; I thought I understood, but did not think he meant anything wrong; I did not want to think he wanted anything improper; I thought that was improper. (Did you not swear before that you did not think that was wrong?) That it was *a sin ? (Did you not know that feeling your person, as you say occurred in the lane, was in violation of the Bible, and wrong, and that you knew it was wrong?) I thought it was wrong, and then I thought Mr. Wood ought to know better; I thought he knew more than I; perhaps it was I that was mistaken, and did not know what was right or wrong. (Did you not swear on last examination “that I knew it was wrong?”) I swear now I thought it was wrong; I swear now I thought it was so. (On former trial did you not swear that you knew you would be ruined if you did that thing?) Yes, I did; of course I think it is wrong now — morally wrong. (Was not the reason why you moved from the home place to keep Mr. Moore here?) Yes, sir; Mr. Wood had nothing to do with bringing us over to the Wadsworth house; I don’t think we lived there quite a year; the object of my mother’s going to Mr. Wood’s was so that Mrs. Wood might go to teach school; mother took her place in the family as domestic. (When was the time of the first intercourse?) I do not recollect the month; I think it was after the celebration at the Sunday-school; I never said a single day or month that I could remember; I could not tell the day or the month; I think it was after the annual celebration — that was in June; while we were in Mr. Wood’s house, my mother, myself and sister staid in the same room, up stairs; the house is a story and a half; Mr. Wood’s study is up stairs; Mr. Wood sometimes staid there late; he occupied that as a study; the room we occupied was a larger room; there is a little pass-way between the rooms; Mrs. Wood’s room is right under this; part of the stairway is over Mrs. Wood’s room. (Would a person walking up stairs be heard in Mrs. Wood’s room?) Yes, sir. (Could they hear talking?) No, sir; they did not hear it; they can hear talking, if loud; Mr. Wood had three daughters; oldest is twelve or thirteen — smart, intelligent children; they staid in the house; Mr. Wood’s mother lived there; she is an intelligent lady; she occupied a room on the lower floor; we all occupied this house; the intercourse with Wood went on while they occupied this house; went on all the time I was *there; I was there nearly a year and a half; the intercourse went on frequently — when a chance presented itself; sometimes in the day time; we left in the fall of 1869; I think we moved back to our own place in 1869. (What about that ring?) Mr. Wood gave it to me after the first intercourse; when we lived at the Wadsworth place; it was a plain gold ring; I kept it till just before I came from Wood’s house; I wore it regularly; young ladies saw it; a young gentleman asked me where I got it; young Benjamin George asked me in Mr. Ramspeck’s store; I was trading; he said, you have a pretty ring, who gave it to you ? I said it was a present; he said was it a gentleman ? I said yes; he said, was it a young gentleman ? I said, why do you ask so many questions ? I said it was a friend; I wore the ring all the time; mother did not know where I got the ring; I gave the ring back to Mr. Wood just before I came away from his house; we had had a falling out; (Did you not love him any longer?) I did not say that; he did not want me to come'away from his house. (Did you control the moving?) He said that my coming away proved that I did not want to have anything more to do with him, and he believed that if I used my influence with mother, she would stay; we made fru nds again; he said he had destroyed the ring; he was so mad at the time, he threw it in the well; he could not be happy, he wanted to make up again; the well was cleaned out; I went to look for the ring; some negro men cleaned out the well; I searched in the sand for the ring; some of the children said, “what are you looking for?” Mamie, Mr. Wood’s daughter, said, “is it that nice ring?” I said yes. (Did you not feel that you had done wrong then?) I felt all along I was not doing right. (But you did not quit?) No; I can’t say why I did not quit; I was so much under his influence, I just did not do it; Mr. Wood wanted us to remain; I don’t know if any one else knew that; I don’t know if that was said in presence of others, that he wanted us to stay; mother was anxious to go home; Mrs. Buchanan wanted her to stay; my mother remained here while the Federal forces were here; I don’t know how long mother had known Mrs. Buchanan; *1 was here while the armies were in here. (Did men stay at your mother’s house during the latter part of the war?) I don’t understand exactly. (Did men not board there?) I only remember but one man, Mr. Warren; mother took care of him, he could not talk. (When the war broke he began talking?) Yes. (Question objected to by State; Colonel Candler said: “We wish to show that witness was- acquainted with familiarities and intimacy between men and women.” Judge: “The testimony is objectionable.”) In the fall of 1869, we occupied the old home; my child was born February 3d, 1871; the intercourse with Mr. Wood was in 1868, after we moved over to the home place; I went to Mr. Wood’s house, and had intercourse with him; sometimes mother would go with me to church, and I would go to Mr. Wood’s house after prayer-meeting; mother would go to Mrs. Buchanan’s in the same house; I would stay at the prayer-meeting and mother would go on to Mr. Wood’s house, then after prayer-meeting, I would go to Mr. Wood’s; go in the house; Mrs. Wood would be at prayerjmeeting then; she would be in church when I went to Wood’s house; she would come along behind; I came by myself; I would go into the lot; I staid outside in the lot till Mr. Wood came; Mrs. Wood went to her room sometimes; sometimes to Mrs. Buchanan’s room, that was below; Mrs. Wood would be in the adjoining room, and I had intercourse with Mr. Wood; I staid in the yard till Mrs. Wood went in, then I went in and had intercourse with Mr. Wood; we had intercourse more than once in a night. (How often — a good many times?) What difference does that make? (We want the facts as they are?) Once or twice — sometimes as many as twice; then I would go home myself; it was nearly half a mile home; mother had gone home; I would just go in; mother once or twice asked me when I came in, “who came home wi1h me one time in particular, I told her that Mr. Wood walked home with me; he met me at Mrs. Morgan’s one time; I -went to visit at Mrs. Morgan’s after this intercourse. (How often did you go to Mr. Wood’s house?) Not so very often after I went home. (Did you ever go in the *day time?) I have been in his house in day time, but never had intercourse with him in day time, after we moved home; it was always at night; he would fix the time for me to go; (beforehand?) whenever he would see me, it would be that day. (Had you not time to think before meeting him?) Yes, sir; we had intercourse at the old place once or twice; I remember more than once — twice, I believe; once was in room down stairs, and once up stairs; the room down stairs is the sitting room; in the day time Mr. Wood came, and we had intercourse; there are three doors ’ in that room; the house is close to the depot; at that time he was regular preacher and pastor of the church; he came there, and w.e had intercourse; I think mother was gone out; Colonel Lowe’s family had not come to the house at that time; I don’t know when Colonel Lowe’s family moved to my mother’s house'; he had an early garden there in 1870; my child was born in 1871; I had no intercourse with Mr. Wood while Colonel Lowe lived at our house; in our house the last time was when he, Wood, came from the General Assembly; that was last time we had intercourse; not long before he went to General Assembly we had intercourse; I think it was just before I went to a Good Templar’s fishing party; I think it (intercourse) was just before that, at his house; on the night of the fishing party I went to his house and had intercourse, and I think that was the last time I went from my home; I went home from the fishing party, then I went to Mr. Wood’s and had intercourse with him; I think that is the last time; then the 3d of February I had a child. (Do you recollect when Mr. Kirkpatrick, myself and Mr. Barry, were at your mother’s house, after the birth of your child?) I recollect that occasion‘well. (Did you not tell me at that time, about three weeks after the birth of your child, at night, in presence of Mr. Robert L. Barry and James W. Kirkpatrick, your mother, and your brother, and Mr. Wood, the defendant, that you never had intercourse with him but one time in your mother’s house, and that is the time you have spoken iof in the sitting room?) If you ever asked me that question, I did not understand you *to mean that; I think you asked me, “did you ever have intercourse in the house, there;” I told you I remembered once; I don’t think I did say never at any other time, but that time; if you asked me that question I did not understand it; though you might have asked it that way, but I did not so understand it. (Did not I present the difficulties of such a thing, and say there might be more convenient places, and call your attention to all these things carefully?) D don’t think so, Mr. Candler; I don’t remember your presenting the inconveniences of these things. ' (Have you not sworn that you yielded to Mr. Wood for these things that Mr. Wood told you?) Yes, sir. (That he loved you better than any other woman alive, etc.?) Yes, sir; I swear that now. (On that same night when we visited you, did not. I ask you, Miss Emma, did you not know that Mr. Wood was' married and had a wife and children, what did you promise yourself in having this intercourse, did you not say, “because you loved him?”) If you did put the question to me in that way, I did not understand you to do so; if you said that I did not understand it; I think you said: “Now, Emma, it is mighty strange, here is Mr. Wood, a married man, your pastor and all this, did you love him, what did you promise yourself, did you -love him?” I said; Yes, sir, I love him; I answered that question; you went on as quick as you could and asked other questions; I think I told you, that he had told me, he had made it a subject of prayer; I put in an explanation, you did not give me time; you said: “Answer my questions as I ask you; I don’t want explanations;” you said: “Just answer my questions as I ask them;” I think that is the way you put it that night; I think I told you that Mr. Wood had told me that he had made it a subject of prayer; you were the first that I told about all the circumstances. (That night did you say anything about Mr: Wood promising to marry you when his wife should die?) I think I did; I am not certain; I don’t remember whether I. did or not; I answered every question you asked me. (Was such a question asked you?) I don’t know, sir; I don’t know if I told you that Mr. Wood said his wife was *in bad health, and could not live long. (Did you tell us, that iie said that he loved you better than any other women living?) I think I told that. (Did you tell us that he said, that you and he were congenial?) I believe there was something said about that, but I am not certain. (Did you tell us, that he said he would marry you as soon as his wife should die?) I do not know; I don’t remember what I said that night; I think I told you that Mr. Wood said it was not wrong to do anything of that sort; I was well acquainted with Captain Barry, Mr. Kirkpatrick and Colonel Candler; I knew what you were sent to see me for; I knew before that you were coming; I said I would tell all the facts about it; I knew the object for which you came; I was up and dressed; I was reclining on the bed; I think I told you about the lane scene; I think I told you about that. (Was anything said that night about seduction?) All was said about the child. (When was the first time you learned about the law, was it when you went to the Ordinary?) (Question objected to by the State.' Judge: “What is the object of the testimony?” Mr. Candler: - “She has learned about seduction afterwards. I wish to get a paper in Court from the Ordinary’s office. We believe seduction was an afterthought.” Judge: “Whatever word she may have said or written may or may not be of importance, but the examination is taking a wide range. What question do you want to ask ?” Mr. Candler: “I want to ask if she did not take a paper to the Ordinary and sign it?” Judge: “Ask the question.”) (Did you not, after the birth of your child, go before the Ordinary and take an affidavit?) Yes, sir; I wrote a copy myself; I had a regular certificate of the Ordinary to sign; I did not fix up that paper; a lawyer fixed it up for me; then I copied it myself, and swore to that before the Ordinary; I copied it myself; I copied it at my house; I copied it because I thought I had to swear who the father of my child was; I went to swear Mr. Wood had ruined me and was father of my child. (Were you in the habit of going into the woods with young men in the night or day time?) I have been out in the day time; I have been *late in the evening, but not in the night. (All day and afternoon?) No, sir. (Have you never been out blackberry hunting with young men and brought no blackberries back?) No,- sir. (Have you not been out and allowed young men to kiss you and hug you?) No, never. (Paper shown to witness and identified as the one she swore to and signed before the Ordinary.)
    
      Redirect examination: (At the time Colonel Candler alluded to, when he visited you at your house, what was your condition as to health?) I was sick; I was just recovering from illness, after the birth of my child. (How long had you been sick?) I . had been sick a month before the baby was born; I was out of my head a month; I did not remember anything that happened the month preceding the birth of my child; Mr. Candler was there about three weeks after the birth of the child; I was weak and sick — not able to sit up much; I had not been outside the room, I think; these gentlemen were elders or deacons and Sunday-school teachers; I never said this child was anybody’s else but Mr. Wood’s. (When was the fishing party you spoke of?) I believe it was in May, I am not certain; I think that was after Mr. Wood went to the General Assembly; to Mr. Wood’s house there was a half story, the intercourse took place both above and below, in his study; Mrs. Wood’s room was under his study; this house is not far from the church; there are no houses between, I think; there was a little house in the woods just out, not far off; I went to his house after we moved from there; he would follow me and tell me in the day time when he wanted me to come; to stand out and wait for him and he would go in and get a light and fasten the door between his room and Mrs. Wood’s room; that was a room down stairs; intercourse took place then in the room below; he would lock and button the door; I would go in that room; I was not going to school to Mr. Wood at that time. (How about hearing below from the room above?) They might hear if any one was talking loud; they could not hear ordinary conversation; they might hear a noise, but could not distinguish what was . *said. (What is your understanding of hugging?) Any one that had arms around me and pressed me to them, held me in close embrace; they have put their arms around me in play — blindman’s buff or something of that sort; they might get us in a corner and catch us; sometimes they might’kiss us in that way; they played with the other girls in the same way; --o one ever hugged or kissed me except in that way; I know Thomas Kirkpatrick; I have seen the affidavit he made.
    
      Recross-examined: (Were you in your proper mind when we visited you?) Yes, sir; I had headache; I made no complaint; T don’t think I had been outside the room; I am almost certain I had not been in the yard; I had been sick before the birth of my child; I had spells before of congestion of the brain; in the month of January I was out of my head; I thought I was pregnant, till the doctor came; he said different causes might produce my sickness ; I was afraid I was pregnant; I did not know it; I ion’t know if the room in Mr. Wood’s house is ceiled overhead ; I ihink there is no ceiling; when Colonel Candler and others visited me, I told them that at first when I began to be sick, different causes made me think something might be the matter; I told Mr. Wood I was afraid I was pregnant; he said he did not think so; he would ask Doctor Durham; after that I did not suspect anything of the kind; that was what I told them; that was whep I was first taken sick. (Emma, what did you tell us about that when we visited you, and asked you did you not say you expected something was wrong, and you intended to ask Dr. Durham about it?) I told you all that at first; when I stopped menstruation, I suspected something was the matter, and I asked Mr. Wood about it; he said, “no, I don’t think so;” he said, “maybe it is a cold,” and turned it off that way; after I was taken sick with congestion of the brain he came to see me; I told him; he said he would ask Dr. Durham what was the matter with me; he did ask Dr. Durham, as he said ; I think I told that circumstance to these gentlemen. (On your oath, Miss Emma, you now say to this jury, *that you told me, in presence of Mr. Barry, Kirkpatrick and Mr. Wood, these things?) I believe I did, but I will not swear to it; I state that as my belief, that I told it that night.
    Harriet H. CpiivERS, sworn: I am mother of Emma I. Chivers; I live just beyond the depot, in this town and county; I know the defendant; I have known him a number of years — several years, probably seven or eight; I don’t remember the exact time he has lived here; he has lived here since the conclusion of the war; he became pastor of our church; I belonged to that church — my daughter, also; defendant was a teacher at a school in this town; the war, at its termination, left me penniless; Emma had no property; the land we live on belongs to my son; Emma had been going to school to Mr. Hunter during the war; I sent Emma to school, and Mr. Wood did not charge anything; I can’t remember years; I don’t remember dates, nor when it was that Mr. Wood commenced teaching school; I sent both my children there; he charged nothing for their tuition; they continued going to him; he said nothing to me about Emma at that particular time; I moved to the other house in 1866; Emma had been attending defendant’s school then, and he charged her nothing then for tuition; I suppose it was in 1866; after I moved over here (to the Wadsworth house) Wood wished me to move to his house; before that he wished to take charge of her tuition, and to direct her, and to have her under control, and wished me to keep her from all young men’s company; said that she had too much young men’s company; he wanted her to be kept so she could attend fully to her studies; I gave him fufl charge of her; I went to his house to live as a friend, because Mr. Wood took charge of the school; the school was so large he wanted an assistant, and he wished Mrs. Wood to go to assist him; he wished me, as a friend of the family, to take charge of family matters; I could not do it without carrying my family with me; my son is gone to Montgomery; I was to pay him, Wood, a certain amount for Emma’s board, $4 00; my little daughter was to take care of his mother; Mr. Wood *requested to have charge of her tuition, and charge nothing for it; I paid him till Mr. Buchanan died; that was in about May or April, 1869; I don’t remember the date of the year, but it is well known when Mr. Buchanan died; I had done some waiting on him; I had done what I thought was my duty; Mr. Wood would not take pay for Emma’s board; after that Mrs. Wood was taken sick, then Mr. Wood and Mr. Ware joined in the school; during the war I staid at my own house, when the enemy came in; I had no money to get away; it was poverty kept me here; poverty compelled me to stay; I was present at the birth of the child. (Did you ever hear that Mr. Wood was father of the child, in Mr. Wood’s presence?) I did, one time; that was when Colonel Candler, Mr. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Barry were present; Mr. Wood was present then; she stated then that Wood vías father of her child; I lived in Mr. Wood’s house as one of the family, not as a' servant; before I went there, he was a constant visitor at my house; we were old friends; his father and mother seemed to think much of me; I looked on Mr. Wood as the son of a dear friend; I trusted him — had all confidence in him; I supposed Mr. Wood came to visit my house for the same reason pf friendship; I had confidence in him as a Christian and a gentleman, and many now have the same confidence in him; I was alone, and liked to have friends to call upon me, and wished protection to my daughter, as every one said she was my idol; I looked on her to assist me when I was old; the opportunity to be a teacher was a great thing; all these things made me have that confidence in him; he came to my house as any other gentleman came; I never knew anything from him but as a gentleman; he came to assist Emma in her lessons; he was not a tutor in my house, but came to assist her in her lessons.
    
      Cross-examined: (When was Emma born?) I can’t tell you,' sir; strange as it may appear, I never can remember dates; I cannot on my oath tell you when she was born; she was born in New York city; I know the circumstances; Dr. Chivers was there at that time; I had two younger ’'‘children when I came to Decatur — a son and daughter; Emma is nearly three years older than Tom — two years, and from November to June; Emma was born in November; Tom was born in June. (What is the difference between Tom and Bell?) The same difference ; one was born in June, the other born in February; nearly five years between Emma and my youngest daughter. (When did you come to Decatur?) I don’t know the year. (Can't you fix the year?) The first house I occupied was the one where Mr. Dadd now lives; Mr. Morgan is dead; his widow is living a mile or two from town; we lived with Mrs. Morgan, probably a month or six weeks, till we got into our own house; we boarded with her till we obtained possession of our own house; next November is Emma’s birthday; I reckon she will be twenty-one or twenty-two years.old; she will be twenty-one, I think, sir. (Did you r.ot swear- last trial that she was past twenty-one?) I think not; I can’t remember anything I swore then; yes, sir, she is twenty-one; she is not twenty-two. (Has not the matter of her age been talked over several years, did you not keep a record in a book?) I don’t know; I never endeavored to keep account of her age; John Hardman wrote the Bible record; I know about the time my children were born; after Mr. Adams came, he told me the year in which Emma was born; that differed from the record I had in the Bible; I judged of their births; I then got John Hardman to write in the Bible record; I had made one and then corrected it; that was the occasion of its being altered in my Bible; I had no idea of this kind of a thing, or I would have been more particular; I am one of those sort of people that don’t take a great deal of method in their actions; I am sorry it is so; the record in the Bible is in my house, I don’t look at it; I know she is my child, and where she was born; I have paid no attention to it: mv Bible is there and it can be brought; I am not swearing from the record; John Hardman wrote the first in it; he amended that same one at Mr. Adam’s suggestion; I did not'recollect at first when my children were born; when I came here, my youngest daughter *was not a year old; I had been here two years when Dr, Chivers died. ’ (You stated that during the latter part of the war you did not leave on account of poverty?) I staid here because I had no way to get away; it was poverty; I had no money to get away with. (Did you not send six or seven negro slaves to Macon?) Yes, sir; were they available to me? I had somewhere about twenty slaves then; I had several thousand dollars due me in Confederate money. (Was there any difficulty then in getting money?) It was in scrip, in Confederate bonds; I could get interest, but not money; I did not have Confederate money; I loaned money to Mr. Warren Davis; I don’t remember if I loaned any to John McCay; I had loaned money to Dr. Hoyle; 1 could not get it then; there was difficulty then; I went to him for it, and could not get it; he was a man of wealth, but he did not get the money. (At the end of the war this home was all you had and some notes?) Yes, that is all; there are about sixty acres of land; I rented that out for some $400 00; Mr. Wood had no money that I knew of except his salary; he sent Tommy, as well as my daughter to school; he did the same way to my son and daughter, in giving them tuition without charge; it was my favorite idea to make Emma a teacher, that was my idea before Mr. Wood came; Mr. Wood did not suggest that to me; she had been to Mr. Hunter; he did me the same kindness, and did not charge for her tuition; I knew old Mr. Buchanan before I knew Wood; during the war I did them many kindnesses; all in town knew that; in October, 1867, we moved to the Wadsworth place; all three families moved at the same time; I waited for some repairs a day or two; Mr. Kirkpatrick moved me over to that place, he made no charges; we went to Mr. Wood’s house in the summer ; I think it was in July — possibly it might be August, 1868; at that time, Mr. Buchanan was living; he lived in that house till next spring; he was step-father of defendant; he seldom ever went away; he was a fine, intelligent and good old man; he remained there, night and day, on the lot; my daughter had a child,, on 2d February, 1871; I never saw anything by which I *could suppose or have knowledge of any impropriety — no actual knowledge of anything improper between Wood and Emma. (Did you not swear, on the last trial, that you had no sort of suspicion; that you thought Emma a little lower than the angels?) I said I never had the suspicion that Mr. Wood was anything but a good man; up to the birth of Emma’s child, I had no knowledge of anything wrong; in 1866 and 1867, Emma was only a child, not a grown woman. (During the time you lived at the Wadsworth house, was your daughter grown?) She was not a matured woman at first; she had a great deal of company; she went into society, but was actually a child; she had a good deal of young men’s company; a good many young men visited my house. (Were they there during your absence?) Sometimes, when I was away, the}'’ were; I have been told so. (Were you absent frequently late at night?) Not late, sir. (Were you not frequently away all nigh£?) Yes, sir; I left my daughter there; I have been to several houses in this town where there was sickness — never for pleasure. (Were you not away so much at night that your attention was called to it by your friends?) One time that was done when Miss Brown was sick; she desired my company; my children, I supposed, would take care of themselves; I stayed with her night after night; Mrs. Eddleman was with her alternately. (Was not your attention called to a certain young man being there too much?) My attention was called to it by some of my friends; that was told to me afterwards; I had told him not to go there during my absence; I was not told at the time these things were going on; it was told to me afterwards —after the thing was talked about; reports were circulated; they did not tell me at the time, but afterwards they came and told me; I had already seen the young man and told him I did riot want him to go there when I was gone, but he had been there before I told him. (Do you know if he was there at improper hours?) Not of my own knowledge; I was not there; I was with the sick; that was in a house in back part of the lot, just inside the breast-works; Mr. Echols lived in the principal house; it *was not more than fifty yards from the principal .house, included in same fence; Mr. Moore had two daughters; Mr. Candler came to me and said that the house was in bad repair ; that Mr. Moore did not want another family on the lot; he wished the house for his own use — the one I lived in ;• Mr. Moore was a good citizen; we wanted to retain him in town; I left there against the wish of my husband; Mr. Candler and Mr. Kirkpatrick made the bargain for me to move over here to the Wads-worth house; Mr. Moore always paid me in advance; Mr. Wood had nothing to do with it, only he thought it a good idea; he never consulted me in regard to it; Mr. Candler and Mr. Kirkpatrick did all the bargaining; they caused me to leave. (What was said in reply when Emma said that Mr. Wood was father of her child?) Mr. Wood said it was a false, infamous lie; she did not say afterwards that it was not so. (Did she not say, in presence óf Mr. Kirkpatrick, that it was not true?) Mr. Kirkpatrick talked with her and said she was insane. (Did she not say that she hoped it was untrue?) I never heard that; I am a woman that does not tell anything but the truth; she did not say that.
    
      Redirect examination: (Something you said about a young man?) That was Charles Ramspeck; he lives in this town. (When do you speak of?) I don't remember the circumstances; it was when I was taking care of Miss Cynthia Brown; Mr. Ramspeck visited my house frequently. (Why?) I knew he came with same design other young men came visiting; there was no relationship, except as friends; never any engagement between them; I presume he was courting; we scarcely know now when a young man is courting a girl in these days; he came there frequently; whether he addressed her to marry, I do not know; there were some young men that did address her; Mr. Ramspeck has never denied that he admired her; I am unable to answer whether he loved her or not. (What is your recollection of dates?) I cannot recollect dates.
    *Charees M. Ramspeck, sworn: I do business in Atlanta ; I spend my Sabbaths in Decatur; in 1866, and portion of 1867, I resided in Decatur; I was acquainted with Emma I. Olivers; I visited her very frequently. (What were your feelings towards her? Question objected to. Judge: “Confine yourself to facts, not as to his feelings; show what took place.”) I went there frequently. (What was her conduct as to propriety? Question objected to. Objection overruled.) I am the only Charles Ramspeck living here then. (What took place between you and her?) Nothing improper; I visited as other young men did; I was partial to her, thinking I was her favorite; I was going along very well, till some parties tried to slander her; I thought it uncalled for and false, as far as I could see. (Was there anything improper?) Nothing; she was the most prudent young lady I ever saw. (Did she allow any improper intimacy?) No, sir, not on my part, or others. (Did you ever attempt to kiss her?) I believe I did, and was repulsed; that was in 1867 or 1868; I was here on Saturday evening and Sunday; I never spent but one Sabbath in Atlanta in December, 1865 — latter part of the month; other yourig men visited her; I met them frequently. (Was there anjdhing improper then?) Nothing, that I ever saw. (How did she conduct herself?) Very lady-like; I have frequently seen boys play with handkerchiefs, but nothing improper, that was in public; I suppose, in 1866, she was sixteen; she was a young girl. (Did you believe her to be a virtuous woman? Objected to; objection sustained. From your association with her, state if she was a virtuous woman? Objected to; objection sustained. Did you ever know anything in her conduct tending to show she was not a virtuous woman ?) Certainly not; I don’t •wish you to infer that I never knew of reports injurious to her character, but merely that the young lady was acting imprudently in allowing me to take her around to church so frequently as she did; I heard from a lady that that was the report.
    
      Cross-examined: I came to Decatur in December, 1865 — 29th or 30th of December; during 1865 I was in Charleston; *1 had an establishment of my own in 1867, a few months; I used to do business; I am not certain as to the date, probably May, June or July, 1867; then I went to Atlanta, and came back on Saturday, sometimes on Friday; once in a while I ■might come during the week; my first visit to Miss Emma was in 1866; I think in October; it might be a little before or after. (Had she received attentions before that?) I don’t know anything about that; she was generally escorted out by young boys from school. (Did young men pay attentions to her before 1866?) I don’t know; my first visits commenced in 1866; my attentions begun in 1867; early in January, 1867, my attentions were more frequent; Mrs. Olivers and Miss Emma were living then I can’t answer where; I can’t tell if in the large house; my first visit was in the main house; I afterwards went alone, and sometimes with other young men; early in 1867 they were at the house near the breast-works; I went there both day and mght; I staid late; I have been there frequently after eleven o’clock; I went early and remained till eleven o’clock - not as late as I went and stayed at other places at respectable houses; I think I have seen others there; I recollect going there once when Mrs. Olivers was not home; I have gone there and found her absent and remained. (Have you not frequently been in the room without light?) No, never; not to my knowledge; there might have been the absence of a lamp or candle, but a light in the fire-place always; some light as good as lamps or candles furnished. (Have you not been seen lying on the lounge with no light in the house, with her head in your lap?) No, never; nobody ever saw that. (Let us reverse it: have you not been seen there lying down with your head in her lap?) No, never. (Were you not there once and sent Adams home and her brother out, and they came back and found you in that position?) I don’t recollect ever sending them off; I think I did not; I have seen Mr. Eddy Adams there; he was not a young man; I understood he was partial to the young lady prior to my acquaintance with her ; he was intimate with me also in 1867; he is intimate with me now; there *is as much friendship now as ever was. (Did you ever go through the woods late in the afternoon by your.selves?) Of course I have gone along in the woods, by the branch; we went gathering flowers and picking blackberries. .(Did you bring any back?) I think so; I am not positive, though; I think we brought some blackberries back.) (Did you say you never kissed Emma I. Chivers?) I never said anything of the sort; I said I might have kissed her, but not to my certain knowledge; if I did, it was something she did not permit; I never kissed her privately. (Did you ever on the railroad,. late in the evening, on any occasion kiss her?) No, sir, not to my certain knowledge; I will not positively swear I have not done so; if I did, it was a stolen kiss. (Did she propose to recover it?) I don’t think it was ever recovered; I did not attempt it again. (Did you not kiss her on the railroad one evening?) I don’t know that I did such a thing, though it might have occurred; I visited her frequently during 1867, and after she went to the place by Mr. Winn’s. (Did you ever go there from Sabbath-school and remain till dinner?) Yes; Mrs. Chivers might go off and leave us; I have gone back over there after dinner, but not frequently. (Would Mrs. Chivers leave you?) ¡Not to my knowledge, though she might have gone out. (Were you not frequently there of nights?) Certainly; I was partial to the young lady; she could attract me further than any one else; I enjoyed her society more than any one else ; I have no knowledge of ever staying after twelve o’clock at night: I have noticed the time; I think they had a clock; I know after awhile she would not let me stay after half-past ten o’clock; I may have stayed there till twelve o’clock; I have no knowledge of staying after twelve o’clock; I don’t ever remember of staying without a light; in going and coming I should have to pass their (Stokes & Gay’s) house; I made a practice to pass tha.t house; it was the most public way; I thought it prudent to take that direction, in consequence of reports that had been out; reports were then out; I did not wish to do anything that would reflect on the young lady; James Kirkpatrick *lives near there, in a line with that house, two or three blocks off; M r. \\ inn lives about two blocks from that house; I may have seen Mr. Kirkpatrick and J. L. Winn there; Mr. Winn lived with his mother, I presume. (Had you ever your head in her lap?) No, sir. (Did you ever hug, her?)’ No, sir; I was not after hugging, I was after the young lady; I was there frequently in 1868; about that time she became cool to the young men; once I asked her who she loved best, expecting she would say it was me; I never hugged her over there, or kissed her, or had my head in her lap. (Do you recollect the date of the fishing party?) I recollect the fishing party; I don’t recollect the date, whether in March, April or May; it might have been in March, April or May; I can’t say it was on the 7th of May; I can’t say it was a May party; I.was at that party; I don’t think I went with Emma Chivers that day to escort her to the party; she did not remain at my brother’s that I know of; I might have been there about supper time; I don’t recollect where she was; I know she was at my brother’s house on morning of the fishing party; I don’t know that she came to my brother’s and remained there a week; she may have been there; I recollect the day I heard the baby was born; I heard it on Friday night, early in February; I heard it in Decatur; brother told Eddy Adams he did not think Charlie had heard the news; I was thunder-struck when I heard it, when they told me who it was; after I got home my brother told me and I was thunder-struck; I don’t think I went to see Emma the succeeding Sabbath, or to the house; I went over perhaps two Sabbaths after.
    
      Redirect: Hearing that Tom Chivers had been out to see me, I did not want to‘turn from him, and turn my back on him because his sister had had a baby; I went to Dr. Durham and asked if he would go over to Mrs. Chivers with me; the old doctor not being home I took the young doctor, and we went over; that was probably the second Sabbath I went over with young Dr. William Durham; he was not a married man; I think I informed you (Colonel Candler) of *it the next morning; I told you I had taken some one with me; I think I had frequently found you there, too; I don’t know whether it was the second or third Sabbath.
    Closed for the State.
    DEEENSE.
    Andrew D. Barry, sworn: My name is Andew D. Barry; I came to Decatur in 1857 when I first came; I returned here in 1865; I came back then; I went to my uncle’s, E. A. Davis’; I became acquainted with Emma I. Chivers before ihe war; I was at school with her before the war; I don’t recollect the year; I think it was in 1859 — I am not certain; I went to school with her in 1867; 1 had a session with her in 1867, at my brother-in-law’s, Mr. Moore; he was living at the Chivers’ place; I saw her there; I saw her frequently; in 1865 and 1866 I think Mr. Moore lived there; I came from Ringgold on a visit; I was going to school at Ringgold; then I saw her; I was here only a short time— probably three weeks, in January, 1866; I met her during that time; we were particular friends at that time — old sweethearts; I came here in December, 1865; she was living in the yard with my brother-in-law, Mr. Moore; she lived in an outhouse; I was. there probably every other day. (What did you do?) I hugged and kissed her frequently; felt of her breast and her thighs. (How?) We were sort of scuffling; I caught her; she did not seem to resist it; very little resistance — in fact, none at all; that was in December, 1865, or January, 1866; on more than one occasion we were out in the yard of Mr. Moore’s; no one was with us. (When did you feel her breast? That was the same time; no one was with us; she made no resistance. (Were her breasts developed?) Tolerable full breasts at that time. (Did she make complaint, or cry out?) None at all; did not seem to mind it at all — she took it pleasantly; this was done twice, I think; I went to school here a year after that; I don’t exactly remember what year that was; it was while Mr. Wood and Mr. Wilson were teaching; Emma went to school then; that was later than 1867; it was the fall *of the year when I went — probably 1868; it was first year he taught school; Emma went to school then; I went to school two or three months — I went regularly; I saw her every day; I had no particular intimacy with her during that time; I don’t think I did anything towards her. (Did you see any acts of intimacy between her and Mr. Wood?) None at all; never saw notes passed. (See any improper conduct?) No, sir, none at all. (Did you see any improper conduct with any other person ?) No, sir, I don’t think I did; she was not very particular keeping her legs hid during the session; occasionally she exposed her legs; she was then considered a grown young lady.
    
      Cross-examined: (When did you take die last liberties with her?) In January 1866; I went to school with her before the war and since, either in 1867 or 1868; I was with her occasionally in 1866; I visited her very seldom. (Was she not a mere girl in 1865 ?) If I am not mistaken she was just as large as she is now. (As well developed?) Probably not in some branches; I don’t know what particular branches; I suppose she was so in person; I thought you referred to her education, when you asked about being developed. (Do you say now Emma was a young woman in 1865?) Yes, sir, I think Emma was; I was sixteen years old, not exactly grown; I considered myself a man. (Were you then a grown man?) I was considered by some people as a boy; I had some beard then; I had not let it grow; I was going to school; we had not commenced reading Datin or Algebra; Miss Emma Chivers was ahead, she was further advanced than 1 was. (Were you sweethearts and old friends in 1866?) I told her I loved her; I think she loved me; I had told her about it; I don’t think I told her that before i felt of her; 1 did not think about its being any harm; I don’t know that I considered it child’s play. (Objected to — objection overruled.) I did not think much about it; I did not care then. (Did you love a woman who allowed liberties with her?) I just had that love; I thought I could go so far and no farther. (What kind of love had you for her?) I did not love her as any *other boy would love his sweetheart; I was trying to have intercourse with her, that was my object; that is what I meant by hugging; and I felt of her thighs, that was 'outside of her dress; I put my hands on and squeezed them; I don’t know what I said.; I don’t know what I did say; that was at her old home; we were out of the house, in the yard; we were on the side where the chimney stands; we were standing up; there was no one there; I suppose it was near one or two o’clock in the day time; they might see it from the depot; I won’t be confident of the exact time; I don’t know where Mrs. Chivers was; she was in Mr. Moore’s when I got in the house; Mr. Moore was then living at the big house; it was near the big house I felt of her; Mr. Moore’s family might be in there; I had been in the house; T saw them in the house; I don’t think I had seen them leave the house or lot; there were a couple of windows on that side of the house, I think. (Is that the room where Mrs. Moore sits ?) Yes; there were blinds, I think, I won’t swear it; it strikes me there were blinds; I did not do it very quick, it took some time; I don’t know how long, probably a minute or two, maybe not so long; we had been playing and scuffling; I was feeling of her legs then; we had been playing and scuffling, most anything, not trying to throw down exactly; we were sort of running after each other; I had caught her in this place; I felt of her titties and her thighs, and hugged and kissed her a time or two; she said nothing ; she seemed to be well pleased, I thought; I don’t know where Mrs. Chivers was, she might have been in the house; I had seen her in the lot when I first went there; I was there probably an hour or an hour and a half; she had been in small house; I had been in large house; had not hugged or kissed her there; I don’t know that I told her that I loved her there; I saw Mrs. Chivers when she was going to Mrs. Moore’s house, she was on the way when I was going from Mrs. Moore’s to her house; Emma and I were in the lot by the house; Mrs. Moore’s family were in the house; Mr. Moore, his wife, and couple of daughters, between sixteen and fourteen, very nearly as large as Emma; I had been in there with Miss *Emma; I stayed probably half an hour in Mrs. Chivers’ -house; we were talking; don’t remember what we talked about; don’t know why we came out; we went back to Mr. Moore’s house; no one was in but Mrs. Moore; don’t know where his daughters were; they were not in the room that Mrs. Moore occupied; the room this way where the window looks over the place where I was with Miss Emma; I don’t know where we went to when we came out of Mrs. Moore’s; no one was with us that I remember; that was the time we commenced running; I think she ran first; I don’t know what I was trying to do when she ran; I might be kissing her; I don’t know; it was only a short time before I caught her; I put my hand on her breast, not under her clothes; my hand would hold her breast; it was a tolerably good size. (When was next time you got to her?) A short while after that; I don’t know where or whenI think it was in Mr. Moore’s house; that was at night as well as I remember; it was after dark; after supper; there were several .there that night; I think Mr. Kirkpatrick and Robert Brown were there; we were having a little party; Mr. Moore’s daughters were there; it was just a candy pulling; we did not all eat supper there; I think supper was before we left home; all Mr. Moore’s people are considered nice people; I don’t recollect the time I got hold of Emma; it was in the room; Kirkpatrick and Brown had gone out; they had left us in the room; the door was shut; I suppose Mrs. Moore did not want to be annoyed with the noise; I can’t repeat the words I said to her; I loved her; I hugged and kissed her a time or two; I caught her and embraced her two or three times; we were in there some five or six minutes; I can’t give the dates; in December or January; in Christmas week or before; it must have been eight or nine o’clock when they went out of the room; I don’t know what they went out for; ic was not very cold that night; we had a fire in there; I did not promenade that night; I felt of her thighs that night; I got at them outside; I sort of squeezed them a little; I think that was the only time I felt of her; I hugged and kissed her before. (Did you go with her after *that?) I don’t remember; I went to school with her after that; I associated with Mrs. Moore’s daughters after that, probably two weeks, in 1866; I stayed about two weeks; I never notified Mr. Moore that I had hugged and kissed.Miss Chivers; Mr. Moore’s daughters were my nieces; his wife was my sister; I was only a boy at that time. (If you had believed her a bad woman, would you have notified Mr. Moore at that time?) I would not at that time; my purpose was at that time to have connection with her. (Why did you not go further?) I was most too young at that time; I thought that was far enough; that was the only reason that stopped me; I came back here in 1866; in the summer or fall; Miss Emma I. Chivers was still here; I very seldom visited her; I think, as well as I remember, I visited her once or twice. (Do you swear you went to see her again?) I can’t be confident; she did not forbid me to come there; nor tell me to keep away from there, in no shape or form; when I came from Ringgold I did nothing when I went to see her; I did not try to do anything; I did not love her then at all; I don’t know that I had seen some other girl; I think, if I am not mistaken, that I went to see her once or twice; I never hugged or kissed her or felt her thighs after January, 1866; I shook hands with her; she shook hands when I went to see her; I never went to try to hug or kiss her. (Was she riot pretty?) I never fancied her after that; before this I loved her; I found a change in her; I could see no difference in her appearance since I came back; she was well made. (Were you in the habit of hugging other girls? Question objected to; ruled out.) I went to school with her part of a term; we were not very intimate then; there was a sort of a coldness; I don’t know what produced it; I don’t think it was produced by my hugging; she never said she was mad; I thought it was because I did not go over with her; I can’t swear that she was mad because I did not have connection with her. (Who was the first you ever told about hugging and kissing her?) I don’t know who was first or when'I told it; I don’t know that I did till last year; I don’t recollect; seems to me I told one or two friends *before that; I think I told Mr. Davis before the birth of that child; I don’t remember the time that I told Moses Davis. (Who else?) I think probably I told a young man named McCulloch. (After birth of the child?) I might have told several. (Did you ever tell Mr. Wood?) I never said a word to him; I never told his attorney about it till a day or two ago. (Did you not make affidavit last October?) I told Judge Hillyer about it; it was last fall some time; I don’t know how long before the affidavit was made; I went to him; I thought it was important that I should do it. (Who told you so?) I don’t recollect who; my friends generally told me to let it be known; Mr. Davis told me to go to Judge Hillyer; I never talked to my father about it; Captain Barry never said anything to me about it; he never said anything till after I made affidavit; I never told him.
    
      Redirect: There was no house near Mrs. Chivers’ in 1866; these new houses were not built; there were none near the depot; Mr. Moore’s daughters were not grown at that time; they went off to school soon after; I don’t know how old the oldest daughter was; not as old as Emma by a year or two; I think Judge Hillyer had not been in the case before I went to make affidavit; I don’t think Captain Barry lived here in 1866; I never mentioned the matter to him till after affidavit was made; I told it to David McCulloch; he is in Alabama now.
    Thomas S. Kiricpatricic, sworn: I was raised right here in Decatur; I know Emma I. Chivers; I knew her in 1865, 1867 and 1868; I knew when she lived near Mr. Winn’s house; in the fall of 1867 she moved there — moved from there in 1869; I think she was there in summer of 1868; in 1867 she lived in the kitchen— back of the .house — they now live in. (If you had any intimacy with her, what was it?) One time I went over there in the fall of 1867 — I don’t recollect exactly — or 1868; I was over there one night when Mrs. Chivers had been doing some sewing; she asked me to wind up the clock; that was in 1870; it was a high clock on the *mantel piece; I had to stand up; the young lady came between me and the fire place, to see the weights going up; it was rather a close place; I shoved back; she shoved back against me; I put my arms around her — 1 hugged her; her mother was in the other room; her mother had told me to set the clock; she got between me and the mantel piece. (Show the jury how you hugged her?) I took hold of her with both hands — I just hugged her, (illustrating, by hugging Mr. Candler as though about to kiss him.) (What did you do with your hands?) I did not feel of her person. (If on any other occasion you saw anything not right, tell it to the jury?) That was repeated after that; I hugged and kissed her at other times when no one was present; I suppose a dozen times or more; the time of the Sunday-school celebration, I recollect that was about middle of June, 1868. (What did you do there?) I did not do any thing particular ; I went in the room; I was talking to Mrs. Chivers; the young lady was on the bed; I had my back to the bed; when Mrs. Chivers left I withdrew without looking at the young lady on the bed; I bid her good evening; as I got to the door she called me back; she had a shawl over the lower part of her person; she had nothing on her from here (waist) up; I can’t tell how her breast was covered; it was covered with some of her underclothes; all her other clothes were loose; she had a shawl hanging over her; she had no business with me to call me back, that I know of; that was in June, 1868. (On'these occasions that you kissed and hugged her was it publicly?) It was at her home, privately; she made no objection to it. (What was her manner?) On one occasion she came and put her arms around me; I saw her with her head in a young man’s lap; that was in 1870. (Objected to. Judge: “If this is to impeach the witness, is the proper ground laid?” Colonel Candler: “This is for a different purpose.”
    Objection withdrawn.) I saw her with her head in a young man’s lap; he was no relation to her.
    Cross-examined: (Who was that young man?) Mr. Swann; he is now dead; he died this year some time; I don’t know his
    *age; I suppose between nineteen and twenty when ■ he died. (How long have you known Emma?) I have been raised with her; I shall be twenty-three years old in May. (Were you ever in love with her?) I have never had her as my sweetheart ; I never told her that I loved her. (Did you use to visit her frequently?) Yes, sir; on business matters with her mother, I visited the house; I never hugged the old woman; her daughter forced it on me to hug her, every time I hugged her; she did on the first occasion; afterwards I found out I could; I remember the first time I hugged her; that was the* time I was fixing the clock; she put herself against me; she was in front of me; my arms came down; she made me hug her, by her acts; she did not tell me not to do it, nor object to it, either; I don’t know how long I hugged her — I suppose I hugged her two or three minutes, or fifteen minutes; Mrs. Chivers was in the other room; I suppose the door was shut; I don’t know if the door was shut; it was a small house; she never said a word while I hugged her, nor I either; she did not do anything; she just stood there; she was ■standing still as a post — no tremble; I did not feel her breast; my arms went round her body; she had breasts then; very little change from then to now; she was as well developed then as npw ; she was not a little girl — about fifteen years old then; I don’t know her age; she has not the appearance of being as old as I am; I had hugged her a dozen times before she had that baby — once in 1869 and once in 1870. (Was it before June, 1868?) I never hugged her before the early part of 1870. (Counsel for State: “Please your Honor, I now move to rule out what witness has said as to hugging in 1870, as this offense is charged in June, 1868.” Counsel for defense: “Wish this to contradict and impeach witness for the State, and show her character as to virtue.” Testimony' allowed to remain for the present. You said you hugged her a dozen times since June, 1868, where was it all done?) 'In the house they live in now; she was a member of the Presbyterian church at that time — I was a member also; she was in good standing in the Church, as far as I know; we cornmuned together at the Lord’s table; *1 had not been at the communion table while this hugging was going on; the hugging was in 1870; she was sick all the year; she was not confined to bed, but did not go out. (Did you think that you and her were doing wrong?) I knew it, and yet did it. (Was it child’s play?) I never had any evil motives, nor intention to have intercourse with her; it was not a lascivious hugging; I had no evil motives attached to it; I did not love her at that time. (Was the Sunday-school celebration in 1869?) No, sir; we had celebration at the church in 1868; I was in Athens in 1869; I suppose she must have been in the family way when I was hugging her; I did not know that. (Were there no indications?) ■ Not at that time; her stomach was not swelled then, nor her breasts large; that was in early part of 1870; I don’t recollect the last time I hugged her; I think in February, 1870. (Were you riding in a buggy with her?) Yes, sir; the old lady was in, and then I did it by request of her mother; I never hugged her while she was in the buggy; it was reported that she had the dropsy; I was with her after February; I never hugged her when I was riding with her; it might have been a good chance, if I had been so disposed; I don’t know why I hugged her in the house. (When is the last time you were with her in the buggy?) I don’t recollect. (Would you have driven a loose woman around?) Not if I had known it; I did not then think she was a bad woman. (Did you not think she was as good as girls generally are?) I thought she was virtuous then; she had done nothing to lead me to doubt her virtue then. (Did she not belong to the same Sunday-school as your sisters?) Yes, but not the same class; she associated with them; I would have stopped my sisters from associating with her if I ’had doubted her virtue.
    
      Redirect examination: My sisters never associated intimately with Emma; I have a sister near her age married; my other sisters are younger; my eldest sister never associated much with Emma. (Objected to. Judge: “It is objectionable.” You state that the only time you hugged this girl was in 1870?) The clock hugging was in 1870; the day I saw her *person was in 1868; in 1869 I was at school. (The riding about in a buggy in 1870, was she not then out of her mind?) Pier mind was then affected; these things (riding, in buggy) was done out of kindness to her and her mother. (At1 the time she exposed her person, what did you think was her object? Question objected to. Judge: “You may show what was said or done; as to her motives, that must be taken from facts.” In what light did you view her actions? Objected to. Judge: “The ruling of the Court was this: every act, look, word that she did or said, no matter how the purpose was indicated, maybe given in evidence; bu. witness’ opinion of her motive cannot be given.” Did you put your hands on her in a lascivious way?) It was not done in a lascivious way; my passions were not aroused; of course, there was some excitement the first time I ever did the like; her rubbing against me caused me to put my arms around her.
    Andrew J. Courier, sworn: I live in Pike county, Alabama; I stayed here in 1867; I was going to school to Mr. Wood; I boarded with Dr. Collier, my brother; I came here 18th July, 1867; Mr. Wilson and Miss Beck were teaching school-with Mr. Wood; I know Miss Emma I. Chivers; she was g'oing to school then; I reckon my brother lived about two miles in the country; I brought in dinner sometimes; sometimes I came up in town at nigh't; generally stayed at school house at dinner; during that time, I became acquainted with Emma I. Chivers; I met her on the street one morning; she was going to school; I was coming along; she remarked to me, I looked very sweet, and she -wanted to kiss me, and called me by the endearing name of “darling;” that was on street coming from school house, by Mr. Kirk’s shop; that was in the morning; she was going to the school house; I met her near Mrs. Morgan’s and Mr. Kirk’s shop, on the sidewalk ; she addressed me in that way; I stopped and talked to her a little while; I don’t recollect what else she said, running on with her; that was the first approach; I reckon she was sixteen or seventeen years old then; I did not know her age; I was - *twenty years old then — I would have been in September. (Any other time at school house?) Boys were playing hot ball; I went in school house; Miss Emma was in; she asked me where Miss Maggie M. ... was; I told her that she had not returned; she called me over there and told me to sit by her; I •went and sat by her; she took my hand and put it in her bosom— inside her bosom — next her skin — right at the place itself. (At that time were her breasts developed?) I reckon half grown; she had breasts; I felt of her legs, hugged and kissed her; that is about all at that time; Clinton Ballinger came in after a while; me and him scuffled around; (aside,) I reckon that has nothing to do with it. (Solicitor General: “Perhaps it has, let us hear it.” Witness, in reply to Solicitor: “I know .what I was subpoenaed for.” Question by counsel for defense: “What for?” “To tell the truth.”) Clinton Ballinger had nothing to do with her, that I saw; I don’t know where she stayed; I met Emma at the railroad, just above the depot, towards Augusta — the crossing below the depot; I always went -up the railroad home; sometimes I wTould go by the depot; I had conversation with Emma; she told me she would let me sleep with her, provided' her mother was absent that night; that was at the railroad crossing, right on the track; that is near where her mother lived; I never went up; I did not go; I was taken sick that night and did not go; I agreed to go. (Did she, on any occasion, expose her person?) She was coming to school house one day about two o’clock; she sort of pulled up her clothes and wanted to know if I did not want to feel of her legs; she was right between a house and school house; right at the corner of the school house; the boys were in rear of the school house; the ball was thrown over; when I'passed her, she raised up her dress and wanted to know if I did not want to feel her legs; she told me one day, in school house, if I would call on her some night like a decent young man, and, after I went out, wait on the railroad about half an hour or so, she would come out and meet me on the railroad; that arrangement was never consummated; I was sick, and I went home; that was all that prevented *it; I don’t know what kind of sickness it was; my brother is a doctor; I don’t think it was a rupture; I went off on account of my sickness; I suppose it was in September, 1867; I left here, I think, in November; I never went to school till August. (Anything else occur in school house at noon?) It looked like she got back pretty early; she returned before school hours; sometimes she would be about me, and I kissed her two or three times and hugged her; I did not see other young men kiss her; I would not swear I ever saw other young men kiss her; I think I saw her and a young man; I think it was her; I was about fifty yards from them, I reckon; it-was about an hour by sun, or half hour; I went to depot to get some money by express; at the time I put my hand in her bosom, she loved me; I asked her what it was: she said, her titties; I put my hand on her naked person — on her legs, under her clothes; at this time, there was no one about that I saw; she made no resistance or objection — she seemed to enjoy it; this was not done in play; I am now a married man; I have a child.
    
      Cross-examined. I came from Alabama to go to school; I had had a little difficulty; I and the Yankees did not quite get along; the Yankee soldiers, they did not like me much, or my father; they broke into my mother’s trunk, .and I was determined to have j-evenge. (“Never mind that.”) I came here to go to school to Mr. Wood; until I came here to go to school, I did not know him, I had not heard of him; I came to my brother; I wrote to my father and he told me to go to school; I shall be twenty-five on the sixth of next September; I was twenty in 1867, lacking a few months; the first time I saw Emma, was in August, 1867; first or second week I started to school, I think that is first I had ever seen her; I never was introduced to her till she introduced herself ; that was in August or September; she introduced herself to me some time in September; I don’t recollect how soon after that I met her in the street; I reckon a week or it might have been a month after; a fellow can’t keep up dates that far back; she introduced herself to me at school, she said she presumed *that was Mr. Collier, she said, this is Emma I. Chivers; I spoke to her politely; I thought she was a decent girl; I do not know who were present then; I cannot recollect; I expect there was some one present; I can’t tell, it was in school house, about one o’clock, after dinner; I would not say if any one was present; there was nothing extraordinary took place then; she called me “darling” after she had got acquainted with me; she sought the introduction to me; she stood off about eight or ten feet; she walked in at the door; I was sitting down writing when she spoke to me; I spoke to her every time I saw her; I think I passed her and spoke tó her; nothing peculiar passed then; I think that was next morning; nothing more said than simply “good morning;” I don’t know if any one was present; I don’t know if Clinton Ballinger was there; he says he is young'er than me. (When was the next time you met her?) I met her every morning, as I walked from school house, I said “good morning,” she would say “good morning.” (Well, when was next time?) What do you want next time for? (“I want you to answer my questions.”) I don’t know when was next time; I told you I met her every morning, and spoke to her like I spoke to any other girl. (I ask the general question when you met her every time it was simply “good morning, was it?”) Yes, sir, though I did not say much to her that morning when she called me darling; we had had no conversation before that; I kissed her in the school house, not in the street; I kissed her about a day or two afterwards; I did not kiss her that morning; I saw her in school house first opportunity in a week or so after, a week or two after I was playing hot ball; I went in school house to get some water; there was no one in there; she said, where is Maggie M... . ? I said she had not returned; she said, come over there; she took my hand and put it in her bosom; she said I looked “mighty sweet;” I can’t recollect every word she said; she said something more of that nature, and just took my hand and put it in her bosom; I felt of her legs; I took my hand out of her bosom, then-felt of her legs; her dress was unbuttoned, one button was unbuttoned; she *put my hand in, and I felt her breast; there were many boys out, liable to come in; Clinton Ballinger came in; I put my hand on her legs; I was sitting on the girl’s side; there are two’ doors to the house; a good 'many windows were broken out; it is the old academy with bell on top; not all the windows out; front windows were knocked out; Mrs. Morgan’s house was across the street; there were the same houses there as now; I kept my hand on her leg three or four minutes; felt it good; I had gone to the water bucket when Ballinger came in; the next time I saw her on the railroad — I believe that was next time — that was between sun down and dark; she came on down after school, and was late in getting home; we met right at the railroad; she was going across when I met her; she told me if I would come round and if her mother was away I might sleep with her; I had never said anything to her about that before; I swear that she suggested that first; I was quite small; I was not as big then as I am now; I have grown since then; most of these corrupt women like small men; the reason they want them, they think they can’t do them any harm; I have learned that at different places; I have learned it from men such as you, (Solicitor General) I reckon; I am not in the habit of associating with corrupt women; I have heard different men say it; I never heard any one in Decatur say it; they have said so in Alabama; she thought I was a boy, you know, I look like a boy now; she thought I was small and only a boy; she proposed to me that I should sleep with her without my ever suggesting it; it was to be that night; I was taken sick; that is the” reaéon I did not go. (What was the matter with you?) I don’t know; I don’t know what part of me was affected; I felt bad all over; I had a doctor to examine me. (Did she propose for you' to sleep with her?) Yes, sir; I got sick on the way home; I told my brother; I was not sick when I was talking; I felt sort of sick but got worse going home; I got home that night about supper time; about seven o’clock, I reckon; brother’s wife asked why I came so late; it occurred between August and November. (When was the railroad *scene?) I reckon it was nearer November than August; she was living the other side the railroad in the rear, back of large house; I won’t be positive it was in November; I can’t say positive; I know it happened; I walked from there two and a half miles to my brother’s; I was sick seven or eight days about home; I saw her again in about eight or ten days in school-house; I and she made arrangements to meet at her house; she told me to come and meet her like any other girl in town; I was talking to her about it; she told me to call on her; she told me to come to her house and go in and stay as long as I wanted, and when I left to wait at the railroad a half hour or so, then she would come; she did not say she would do anything; I did not to go to her house, because! received money to go home; I' stayed at brother’s awhile before I went home; I think this occurred a week or two before I went home; I think she was living at the same place, oyer at her mother’s place; I think in November; I don’t know what time in November she made'the proposition; we did not decide on what night to come; I did not tell her what night I would go, as she would know what I was after when I got there; I got money to go home not long after this conversation; it might have been a week or three days; I can’t recollect; I did not get it in two days; I went to school only a day or two after; I told Mr. Wood I was ruptured; I believe I told him twice I was ruptured; no, I don’t think I did tell him I was ruptured; I went'to him to settle my tuition; I had money; I had some more money; I wrote to my father that I was going home; I could have got money from my brother; I know that; 1 can’t tell how soon after the arrangement with the girl that I told Mr. Wood, nor how soon after that the money came; I don’t think it was a week; I was sick all that time; she made arrangements with me; I thought a man ought always to agree to that; I was sick some days and well others; I will not swear I was too sick last time I was at my brother’s; I could have gone to see her; I did not want to; I wanted it but did not have opportunity; I did not feel like walking to town; I expected to ride a *horse; I think my brother was practicing medicine; I thought I could get the horse; my brother was not practicing all the time; he might want his horse and I hated to ask for it; I told you why I did not go; I had not the opportunity; I could not get the horse; I could have got him, but I hated to ask brother for him so much; then I was sick, too; I don’t know. what was the matter; nothing the matter with my privates, I was all right there for operating; I was sick; suppose you had fever, don’t that make you sick; I don’t know if I had fever or not; I did not have fever. (I would like to know what was the matter with you?) You will have to go to Dr. Collier then, he might know; that was the last time I hugged her or had conversation with her. (Have you mentioned all the times you felt of her person or made engagements with her?) I never made engagements with her to sleep with her; she made engagements with me; I 'think I have told all the times; when she pulled up her dress and asked me to look at her legs, I don’t call that a conversation ; that is just speaking, that is the way I put it; it was right at the corner of the school house when she pulled up her clothes; she pulled them up as high as the middle of her thighs; I did not ask her to do it; I went round the school house to get a ball; I never felt her then; she asked me if I did not want to feel her legs; I said yes; boys were playing back of the school house; there were Clinton Ballinger, Bob Brown and Andrew Barry, I think Moses Davis, I think Mr. Evans was going to school, he was playing ball; no one else got to look at her legs that I saw; when Clinton came in I was at the water bucket; the reason I did not tell what took place we were running on another schedule. (Testimony objected to. Judge: “If it is irrelevant, it won’t go the jury.”) We got to scuffling and he threw water on me, so I just turned the water bucket on his bosom; that was all that happened then. (In your direct examination you said you knew what you were subpoenaed here for?) I knew it myself; I knew I had to swear the truth, that was what I knew; nobody told me what to swear; they wanted toe "as a witness. (Do you swear that no *one told you what they wanted you here for?) Well, I don’t understand you. (Do you swear that no one told you for what purpose you were subpoenaed here as a witness?) No, they never told me; I have heard it; I heard it from Messrs. Hillyer & Bro.; I was at home; they wrote to Captain Gardner, my attorney; he wanted me to make a. statement of the facts if I knew anything. (How came they to know what you knew about it?) I saw it in the paper; I saw that Mr. Wood had been convicted and sentenced; I went up to Troy, Alabama, to see Mr. Gardner, and he and I got to talking; he said, “do you know about Mr. Wood’s case and the girl?” I said I did; I told him what I have told you, and he said, “I think your evidence would be of the greatest importance to Mrs. Wood,” he would write to her, and believed that it would be the means of getting a pardon for Mr. Wood from Governor Smith; Mr. Wood came to see me out there; I believe last Friday night a week ago; he came to see me on this business; h'e only stayed about one hour; he said he wished I would come; he knew he could not get me out-of the State and wished me to come; I paid my expenses here out of my own pocket; no one ever promised to pay it; I look for it; Mr. Wood did not tell me anything about the expenses; I heard my brother was sick; I thought it a good chance to come here to testify in this case; I never told any one about this but my brother in Atlanta; he is clerking for Parker in Atlanta; I think in a fancy grocery; I told him about it; I believe I told him in 1868, in Alabama, at Opelika; brother’s name is George Collier; I told him he would get good picking if he would come up here; he could get in with a girl; I told him that she was very intimate with me; I never told him that I felt of her legs; I told him about Miss Chivers; I never told him all that I have told here; I told him in Alabama he would get good picking out of Miss Emma Chivers; I swear that, and that is all; I told him he would get good picking out of Miss Chivers; I told him where she lived; I never told any one else about it but him; I am a farmer in Alabama. (Are you sure that all this happened in July and August?) I said *between August and November. (Did you not swear it happened in July, 1867?) No, sir, I do not swear that I did swear it; I think I swore between August and November; I won’t be positive about it; no, sir, I did not swear that it occurred in July or August; I don’t think I did; I swear now that it did not all happen in these two months. (Plow was Miss Emma’s dress when you put your hand in her bosom?) There was one button of it unbuttoned in front; that was while she livéd over the railroad, in August or September; I don’t recollect what kind of dress; it was calico: I think it was mixed colors. (Did you swear that you saw Emma and Charles Ramspeck going down the railroad?) I saw a woman and a man; I will not swear it was Emma Chivers; I never was acquainted with Ramspeck then; I think he was living at Atlanta then; that was on Sunday evening; I don’t remember the Wadsworth house; I swear I don’t remember when she moved or did not move.
    
      Redirect examination: (Did you mention these matters to Mr. Gardner?) Yes, sir; he is an attorney in Troy, Alabama; 1 gave him the name of Mr. Wood; I think he received a letter from Mr. Wood; there was a letter received from Messrs. Hillyer & Brother; I am not certain that he received a letter from Mr. Wood; letter was shown to me; that is the way they found out I knew about the case; Hillyer & Brother wrote to me and I replied to them; then Mr. Wood came out to see me; that was a slioit time ago; I talked to the attorneys since I came; my brother George is jrounger than I; he came to my brother's here; I told him before he came here about Emma Cl úvers; I just told him what I told the solicitors. (What conversations?) I was alluding to improper conversations; Í have talked to ner cn other subjects — to her and Miss Maggie M-; there was nothing improper said in presence of Miss Maggie; I have been testifying about conversations between July and November; I heard of Mrs Chivers’ moving; I don’t know anything about it; she was living over the railroad when I came; I don’t know where she was living when I left here; it was at the house over the railroad *that I expected to meet her; I was not here at all during 1868; I have not been here since 1867; I have not been back till now; I left here in bad health; I lived in Pee county, near Opelika, Alabama, at that time; it was Russell county then; there has been a new county made since; I lived about one and a half or two miles from Opelika; where I live now is about one hundred miles by railroad — through the country, eighty or ninety; my father is still living in Opelika. (Corrected answer:) Mr. Wood told me that his friends would pay my expenses.
    Moses E. Davis, sworn: I live about three miles from Decatur ; I am acquainted with Emma I. Chivers; I don’t know how long — ever since she was a little girl. (Do you know anything about persons kissing or hugging her; if so, state to the jury when or where.) As well as I remember, in 1866, the latter part, as well as I remember, Mr. Andrew Barry, I saw him hug and kiss her once in Mrs. Chivers’ yard, by the railroad; I don’t remember seeing any other persons hugging her, only kissing her. (Did you ever do anything of the kind?) I hugged and kissed her in latter part of 1866, in a room where she was living; I don’t think any one saw me do it; there were others in the room, but they did not see it; the room was not very light. (Did she make objection?) None that I could see; never said anything — -never resisted it; I was about twenty or twenty-one about that time. (Do you remember the fishing party at Fowler’s mill?) Yes, I remember the time; I don’t remember the date; it was in the first of May; I don’t remember what year it was; it has been some two- or three years ago; it was a Good Templar’s fishing party at Fowler’s mill; a portion of the Good Templars went there; Emma was there; Ramspeck was there; I don’t remember seeing them at first; a crowd of us walked up the side of the pond where they could fish; we sat down to fish, after clearing off the bushes, some went to fishing, and after a while Mr. Ramspeck and Emma went off up the pond and were gone some time; they *went off alone; there was no one else went up the pond; they were gone about one hour and a half.
    
      Cross-examined: I am first cousin to Mr. Barry; I am no relation to Mr. Moore’s wife; I am not acquainted with her through Mr. Barry; I am about twenty-five; I was born in 1846 — I believe in July; I shall be twenty-six in coming July; Emma Chivers-was not a child when I was hugging her; she was about seventeen years old; I have heard that; I don’t remember when she was born; probably she was not quite seventeen, but not far from it; I think; when I hugged and kissed her I was not in love with her at that time; I never told her that I thought anything of her in my life; my father is not living; he was not living at that time ; I don’t remember when he died; I was a boy; I belonged to the Presbyterian church since 1866 or 1867; I was a member of that church at the time I was with Miss Emma; I have been with her in school; I did not visit her; I was with her; I don’t think I was ever in her house; I kissed and hugged her where Mr. Moore lived; there were two girls in the room and Mr. Barry; they did not see — it was very dark; Mr. Moore’s daughters were in there, and I and Miss Chivers; I had her sort of back in the corner; it is not a very large room; I probable said something to her, I don’t know what it was; that was the first time I kissed and hugged her; I just put my arms around her; I did not ask her; she was sitting down. (Were you playing some game?) No, we were not playing then; we had not been playing kissing then; a sort of scuffling playing with a chair; I don’t know what kind of a game that was; we were pulling chairs across the room with girls in. them; the others were not doing the same thing; there was no other hugging done except in this case; I was there to see, I don’t think they did, they never spoke of it; I don’t know that I spoke of it; I did not tell that I had kissed Miss Emma Olivers ; I don’t think they knew I had done it, because they never said anything about it; I put my left arm around her waist and kissed her two or three times; it did not take more than two or three minutes; that was the first time; I *never asked her; she made no objections; took it freely; I sort of had an idea that I could kiss her; I had no object; I had no intention then to have intercourse with her; I never hugged her any more; that is the beginning and the end — that is all I got, sir; the fishing party was in May; I do not remember the year; it was 1869 or 1868 — I am not certain; I saw Mr. Barry hug her in latter part of 1866 — along about October; I don’t remember telling any one but my cousin about it; that was a short time after it was done. (Did you not make affidavit before the Ordinary, Mr. Webster, on the 4th of October, 1871?) I suppose I did, sir. (Did yon not swear in thát affidavit that you had seen other young men frequently hug and kiss her?) Yes, sir; I swore that Barry is the only one I ever saw hug and kiss her; I don’t remember any one else; I have seen boys kiss her in the school house, but I don’t remember who. (Any one but Barry?) I think I did; I still think I have seen other boys kiss her. (Think if you can recollect any one else?) It made no impression on my mind then, and I can’t remember. (Did yóu ever see Robert Barry kiss her?) Not that I recollect; I don’t remember seeing Archy Avery nor Benjamin George; he was not at school then; I think I can say that C. R. kissed her. (Did you ever see Tom Kirkpatrick kiss her?) The names I could not state; I have seen boys kiss her— I don’t remember who; there were a great many boys there; Barry is the only one I can positively say I saw hug and kiss her; those who kissed her in school did so in play, I reckon — never saw other girls kissed; I suppose they were playing some play; as well as I can remember she was kissed, and they were not— that is my impression. I can’t be positive who I first told about it; I have told a good many; I don’t remember a list of those I have told. (Did you ever tell any one before the baby was born ?) I don’t know that I ever told any one but Barry before the baby was born; he told me he had hugged and kissed her before the baby was born; don’t remember how many times he said he had kissed her; he told about kissing and hugging; believed he could go further; did not go further; I did not; I never *tried to go further; I don’t think I did want to go further; I never visited her after that; (Have you sisters?) Yes;' they were about her age; they did not associate with her much; very little; they never were at her house; they spoke to her. Í Did they not sleep with her at Mr. Wood’s house?) I suppose one of my sisters did; after I kissed and hugged her, I did not tell my sisters. (Would you allow your sisters to associate with a loose woman?) No, if I could stop it; I think my sisters would have dropped her if I had intimated that she was a loose woman; I never told my sisters about her; I never told them not to associate with her; we lived in the country and they seldom came to town; they might do so, but I don’t know if they ever slept to'gether; they stayed at the same house that Emma I. Chivers was in; I thought the liberties were more than she ought to allow; it did not impress me with the idea that she was not virtuous. (Did you see anything after 1868 that led you to believe she was not virtuous?) I suppose not; I think not. (Your hugging was not this lascivious kind paving the way to sexual intercourse?) No, it was not.
    
      Redirect examination: Andrew Barry was uncle to Mr. Moore’s daughters; they were little girls; they were a good deal younger than Emma I. Chivers. (Was your sister that you spoke of being at Mr. Wood’s older than Emma?) Yes; Emma went to school to my sister; about the first school she ever went to; my sister was a grown lady then. Mrs. Moore’s daughter (eldest) was not as old as Emma; she was not more than thirteen years old; between thirteen and fourteen probably; I did not ask their age.
    W. Ceinton BaeeingER, sworn: (Were you going to school to Mr. Wood in-1868?) Yes; I boarded in 1868 at Mrs. Morgan’s, and went to Mr. Wood’s school; I also boarded at your (Col. Candler’s) house in 1868; Miss Emma I. Chivers went to school that year; I think Mrs. Wood assisted in school latter part of the year. (Was she able to teach school?) As far as her health I never heard or saw anything wrong; she walked to the school-house and taught school. (Do you recollect the *night that Miss Emma was at Mrs. Morgan’s and you went to the school-house and came back to Mrs. Morgan’s at night, and in your presence Mr. Wood said he would conduct Miss Chivers home, and would not trouble you to escort her?) No, I don’t recollect such an occasion at any time; I do not recollect anything like that at any time; if anything like that had happened I think I should have recollected it-; I attended school while Mr. Wood taught all that year. (Did you ever see any intimacy by Mr. Wood toward Emma I. Chivers?) No more than towards other girls going to school; I saw no notes passing between them; Andrew Collier went first five months in 1867; I went to school then; I recollect when he went home; I think his father sent for him; I think he had been sick. (Do you recollect touseling with him and he complained of being ruptured?) No, I don’t recollect anything about that or what was the matter with him.
    
      
      Cross-examined: I do not know that Mr. Wood was partial to Miss Chivers; if he ever was he never told me so, nor I could not discover it from his actions; I can’t say that they were congenial ; Mr. Wood did not show her favors in school; he told me he was educating her gratis; as far as attentions to her more than to other scholars, I never saw it. (Did you ever see him at Mrs. Morgan’s when Miss Emma was there?) I think I have; I never knew him to go home with her after night; he did not go home with her that night that I recollect of; I don’t recollect who did go home with her; I don’t think I did; there were no other young men boarding there but me; none there that night that I know of; I think I have seen Miss Emma Chivers at Mrs. Morgan’s; I don’t think I saw Mr. Wood there the same night; I don’t recollect I ever saw them there both at night; I could not say positively; I have no distinct recollection about it; I have been away from here two years; I did not suspect anything between them; I will not swear I saw them or did not see them there that night. (Do you say she was not there one night, and you went to the school house to see Mr. Wood?) I don’t recollect anything about it; I don’t state positively that I did not; I knew Miss *Emma as a school girl; I never saw any young man take improper liberties with her; I have seen her playing in a crowd; I never saw anything improper in her conduct privately; I never saw anything improper in a crowd. (Ever see anything different to other girls?) No, I did not. (Was she not regarded as a smart, model girl — well educated?) She was considered very smart; I never heard of her as a model girl. (Mr. Ballinger, when you were in school one day at dinner, did anything particular occur? Did you see her and a young man by themselves?) I may have done so — I may not. (Did you go in school house one day at noon and get in a tousel with a young man, and see her in there?) I have a sort of recollection of scuffling with young Collier; I think Miss Emma was. in; there were children in — there were other children in; I don’t remember who they were. (What happened?) I believe I got wet; the children did not engage in it; I don’t remember who were there.
    Mamie Wood, sworn: I was fourteen last September; Mr. Wood — Myron D. Wood — is my father; I recollect when Mrs. Chivers and Emma lived at our house; I recollect the well being cleaned out two or three times; a white man cleaned it out once; a negro man cleaned it out once while Emma was living there. (Did you see or hear anything about finding a ring?) I don’t remember anything about it at any time; none of the family said anything about a ring being found in the well; I was at home all the time; Emma lived at my father’s. (Did you, at any time, see-your father show anything towards her that gentleman ought not to do?) No, sir; I never saw him kiss her, or put his hand on. her at all.
    
      Cross-examined: I am fourteen years old now; I was ten in 1868; I was born in 1857.
    
      Miss Mary A. H. Gay, sworn: I reside in DeKalb county, in the northwest part of this village; I live very near the house that Mrs. Chivers lived in during 1868; I live on this side of that house; in going to Mrs. Chivers’ *h,ouse from town, persons would have to pass my house. (In going from her house towards the church, would they pass your house ?) They would not go as near as from town; there'are two streets passing my house — one across and'one direct. (In 1868 did persons live with you?) My sister and my brother’s widow and her little son; in 1868 he was about six years old; he was born 30th March, 1864; that would make him about four years old then. (Please tell the jury in your own language, about seeing persons visit Mrs. Chivers’ house, the hours they went and left there; slate all you know.) My little nephew was sick in August and September, 1868; he was sick a long while; his mother and myself occupied the room nearest to Mrs. Chivers’, we could see a great deal of passing; I never saw so much at any other one house; not only young men from this place but from a distance; at all hours of day and night; I saw them leaving there till daylight, should I be up with the little boy. (Any particular young, man that you could see?) I got so acquainted with the footsteps of a young man, I could tell without looking, but when I did look, my impressions were confirmed; I think I saw him after midnight on more than one occasion; that was Mr. Charles Rams-peck; I read all night, I was so anxious about the boy. (Have you seen the same young man going at other times?) During week days, I don’t remember to have seen him; on Sunday he often went and attended the young female of the house' — -I mean Emma Chivers, by the young female; in the afternoon Mrs. Chivers generally walked off and left them together; the doors would invariably be shut, and windows closed; he would remain all of the Sabbath afternoon; I think I saw that every Sunday while they were there; I was absent when they moved to Mr. Wood’s house; I returned to Decatur in the early part of September. (Were you home in March?) I think I was; I don’t think I saw anything of that sort during that time; there was nothing to cause me to be up during the night. (Do you recollect the Sunday-school exhibition ?) I can’t remember when it was; I don’t remember only the latter portion of the year; I have no diary *on that subject; I have a diary, but not with me; I think I was not here when Mrs. Chivers moved to Mr. Wood’s; when I came home I found her living there; I think it must have been in October when she moved there, or in November, but I am not certain.
    
      Cross-examined: All these things happened in latter part of the year 1868. (May it please your Honor, we move to rule out this testimony, as it refers to matters since the offense is alleged. Judge: “That question will not be acted on now.”) (What is your age?) That is rather a delicate question; I was born in 1828; I have been here twenty-one years; I am not a married lady. (Did not you and Mrs. Chivers have a difficulty once?) I heard a great deal about her; I told her what I heard, and it made her very angry; I never quarreled with her; I told her she kept a house of assignation; that was told to me in Atlanta; Mr. Harvill told it to me; it was in the fall, a little after the surrender. (We object to testimony as to Mrs. Chivers, she is no party to this seduction, we have nothing to do with difficulties between her and this witness. Judge: “You may show the state of witness’ feelings.”) I am a member of the Baptist church; I have seen Miss Emma at Mr. Wood’s house frequently; (Did you ever tell Mr. Wood about these things?) No, I don’t think I ever did; I was a friend of Mr. and Mrs. Wood; I spoke of it before Emma’s baby was born; I did in our family; I never told it of her; I thought she was a poor orphan girl; I did not know that Mr. Wood was educating Emma for a teacher; I knew he was teaching her; I think I knew he was teaching her free; I am well acquainted with citizens here; I knew the young lady; I am a friend to her but did not associate with her much; I did know of some girls who would not associate with her, nor even go with her to school; they are young ladies; they are related to Mr. Wood. (When did they quit going with her?) That was when she lived by us; Mrs. W.... forbid her daughters to associate with her by the doctor’s request; that was when Emma was going to school; Mrs. W.... told me so; I heard her tell it before me; I don’t know when Emma *had a baby; I don’t remember if I heard it (forbidding young ladies to associate with Emma,) while Emma lived there, (at the Wads-worth house.) (Do you know that Emma and these girls were at the same Sunday-school?) I did not attend that church; I did not know these facts; the Misses W... .n did not go to school with Emma; they quit associating with her before she left Mr. Wood’s; I knew the Misses Moore; Emma and Sally Moore quit keeping her company. (Do you say they quit associating with her, of your own knowledge ?) I know this, that when she was at church .... (Please answer my question.) I don’t know this positively. (Do you know they did do it?) I know their father told me .... (Once more, do you know they quit associating with her?) I think their father could state that; I did not know; I know that Mr. Moore said .... (I don’t want to hear that.) I know Mr. Moore was a member of the Presbyterian church. (Did you say that you saw a young man come out of her house in daylight?) I have seen him come out of their yard. (Who?) Mr. Ramspeck was the most constant visitor; I did not see him come out of the house; I have seen him come out of the yard in daylight; it must have been in September; I have known of others, quite a number, coming at every hour, from nine o’clock till daylight. (Did other young men come out after twelve o’clock except Charles Ramspeck?) I can only guess from those who went in at daylight; I can only tell who was there in the day time; there was a young man name of D... .n, he is connected with the Durham family. (Who else?) I was told not to tell; Mr. Kirkpatrick’s sons, Tommy and Jimmy; I don’t know they were the ones that came out between twelve o’clock and daylight. (Are they the gentlemen that left between twelve o’clock and daylight?) I should prefer not to say. (Question repeated.) I never saw them come out at night. (Counsel for defense objected; objection overruled.) (Are those young men in the catalogue of those coming out at all hours of the night?) I don’t know what to say; I know Ed. Burnett went there in the day time; I would rather suspect him *than those young men, (Kirkpatricks;) I could see, as we had no palings;.I could see there would two or three go at a time, or one at a time; I never-saw Ed. Burnett come from there between midnight and daylight; I think Robert Brown went there a good deal. (What year?) He visited a great deal, I cannot be definite; I don’t know if it was in 1868; I have seen him meet her at the depot at dark; I can’t be positive where I saw him; I have seen him with her in day time, walking with her; I have seen him at the Chivers place often; I can’t be positive when; saw him at the Wadsworth house. (Do you believe you ever did see him there?) I see there are great efforts made to invalidate my testimony by Mr. Fry and others. Judge: “Answer the questions to the best of your knowledge and belief, promptly.”) I don’t remember him (Robert Brown) in that crowd; I paid no attention except when I recognized them. (Did you recognize any one?) None but Charles Ramspeck, when I have been in the yard and at the window. (Can you name any one except him?) I can’t name any. (Did you ever see any one but Charles Ramspeck leave there between twelve o’clock and daylight?) I have seen the forms of men, two and three at a time; they would go in crowds; they went three at a (¡time; I never counted the times; I know of more than once. (Did you see it more than once?) Yes; I’don’t know how often; I saw it twice; I never told any one except my own family; I have seen Ramspeck come out of the yard at daylight in the fill of 1868, or the latter part of summer, September or October; at that time he was here during the week; I noticed it more than Sunday nights; more than once. (When and where did-Harvill tell you about Mrs. Chivers?) That was at his own table, his wife and little girl were present; it was when the railroad was torn up; I don’t remember exactly, it was some time about the conclusion of the war; he had thought of prosecuting her; she stayed with a negro; none of her family stayed there with her; Emma was not with her. (Defense objected; objection sustained.) I have been in Memphis for the last month; I was subpcenaed as a witness; the *subpoena was sent by mail; Mr. Candler sent it; I have been there four months ; I went there to have some publishing done; Mr. Candler telegraphed me also to come.
    James W. Kirkpatrick, sworn: (Were you present at Mrs. Chivers’ a short time after the birth of Emma’s child, when I (Mr. Candler) was present, Mr. Barry, Mr. Wood and Mrs. Chivers and her son Tom?) I was, one night. (Do you recollcct if I asked Emmá I. Chivers what she promised herself, etc.?) You made the inquiry this way: “If she did not know that it was wrong?” she said she did; you asked her what induced her to perpetrate that wrong? her answer was, “because I loved him.” (Did she give any other reason that night?) She did not; I think she never said that Mr. Wood had told her that he loved her better than any other woman alive; she never said that. (Did ■ Emma say that night that Mr. Wood had promised to marry her?) No, she did not. (Did she say anything about marrying?) Nothing at all said about that, nothing at all. (Anything said by her about Mr. Wood having made it a subject of prayer?) No, sir. (Anything said by her that Wood had said it was not wrong?) No, sir; nothing of that kind, that I have any recollection of. (About his wife being in bad health, etc.?) No, sir. (Did she, at that time, or any other, say she had been 'deceived by Mr. Wood?) Nothing of that kind stated that night; the only reason she assigned was that she loved him; you said, 'did she not know he was a married man ? Did she have the same love for him that she would for a young man ? She said she did. (What did she say as to her suspicions of being pregnant?) In the afternoon she said she had no knowledge or suspicion or idea that she was pregnant; that she was taken by surprise when her child was born; you (Candler) cautioned her not to make that statement — it could not be believed; she said she had no symptoms of its moving as a living child in the womb; said she had no intimation or knowledge whatever before it was born. (What was Emma’s condition as to health?) As far as I could judge, she talked as well as ever she did; she was *up and dressed in her usual apparel; no complaint made at all. (Did she make any allusion to Mr. Wood, saying it was not wrong; that his love was pure and holy, etc.?) She told nothing of that kind, if my recollection serves me right; you mentioned something of that kind in the afternoon. (Was that not in reference to an old field scene?) Yes, sir? (Was the lane transaction mentioned that night?) I don’t recollect that it was. (Was anything said about intercourse at her mother’s house?) She stated she had had once, and only once, and that was in the front room; I think you asked her, “This room ?” and she said, “Yes, only that one time.” (What was the condition of Mrs. Wood’s health in 1867 and 1868?) I have no right to judge, except from what I sa^y; she was in school daily; scarcely a day, when teaching, but she went — wet and dry. (What year was she sick?) I think it was in 1869, if my memory serves me right; it was during summer months, I think. (What was the final result of Mrs. Wood’s sickness?) I know what was told— I don’t know of my own knowledge, only what was stated by the physicians; I know where Mrs. Morgan lived; I think that was in 1856; the same place where Mr. Dadd now lives; I think Mrs. Morgan was there in 1856; I recollect Dr. Chivers came there; I think Mrs. Morgan was there part of 1855.
    
      Cross-examined: (Who were present at that interview you testified about?) We had two interviews: one in the afternoon— the one in which Emma said she yielded to him; myself and Mr. Candler went first; we went there for the purpose of having an interview with her; it was done at the instance of the Presbyterian church — Mr. Wood’s church; we went as officers of the -church; I was an elder, Mr. Candler was a deacon at that time; we stayed there near two hours; we did not examine her as to the getting or birth of the child, the examination was as to the father of it; she at first refused to tell; I don’t know that we told her that the church had sent us; I had heard before that Mr. Wood was father of the child; she told us then that she had never stated who was father of it; she said she would not tell who was father of it till he was in her presence; *Mr. Candler asked her how the report got out that Mr. Wood was father of it; she said she had never said so; Mr. Candler told her he did not come to ascertain whp was the father of it, if Mr. Wood was not; she said she would not state who the father was, till he was there; we got away about sunset, without hearing who was father of the child; we asked her if Mr. Wood would come •down there after supper, would she then state who was father, of the child; I went myself and notified him, and got him and Mr. Barry, (he was an elder of the church with me,) and we four went — Kirkpatrick, Barry, Candler and Wood; when we went in, we stated that Mr. Wood had come, at our request; then she said Mr. Wood was father of the child; Mr. Wood was sitting there; I think he said it was false; I think he said it was ah infamous falsehood, or infamous lie; her mother and brother were in the room; I don’t think Mr. Wood said anything else; we had n long conversation with her; she did not hesitate about answer-' ing who was father of the child; I think the question was only asked once; I think the child was about three or four weeks old; I don’t know, of my own knowledge, that she had been sick; she ■showed some evidence of having been sick, but not unusually so; ladies are very sick at these times; I have known Miss Emma, I suppose, since she first came here; she was a member of our church; Mr. Wood never was a member of our church; according to our discipline, ministers are not members of the church where they preach; Emma was a member at the time of the birth of her child; was a member in good standing; had been in Sabbath-school ; I was associate superintendent and teacher; she was a good scholar; (prior to January, 1868?) as to her connection with the Sunday-school, I don’t think I could answer; when she was a member of my class, she was a regular attendant; I have presented her with some books — perhaps a Bible; it probably was given for punctual attendance; (Bible shown to witness;) I expect I gave her that Bible with that inscription: “Presented to Emma I. Chivers for punctuality and good lessons, by her teacher, James W. Kirkpatrick. July 1st, 1868.” At that time, she *was a good scholar and a good girl, as far as I know. (Do you know of any fact to show that she was not virtuous?) I do not. (Are you a friend to Mr. Wood?) I suppose I should be considered such.
    Robert L. Barry, sworn: (Were you present one night at Mrs. Chivers’ house, three weeks after the birth of Emma’s child, with myself (Mr. Candler) and Mr. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Wood, Mrs. Chivers and her son?) I was. (Was she not asked by me what did she promise herself in having carnal knowledge and intercourse with Mr. Wood; did I not say to her, “do you not know he is a married man, a minister of the gospel — there were young men — did she not know it was wrong?”) These facts were presented to her as you stated them; her answer was, because she loved him; she gave no other reason for it. (Did she say or intimate that she had been deceived by Wood?) She did not. (Did she say anything that.Mr. Wood had promised to-marry her under certain circumstances?) She did not. (Did she say that he told her his wife was in bad health, and could not live long?) She did not speak of Mr. Wood’s wife that I know of. (Did she say anything of him loving her better than any other woman alive?) No, sir. (Did she say 'that Mr. Wood had told her he had made intercourse with her a subject of prayer?) Not a word of it; she did not begin to intimate it; after we got into the house; Miss Emma was lying on the bed dressed; after remaining a few minutes, you, Mr. Candler, notified her that we had come to hear the facts connected with Mr. Wood being father of the child; if she was able to make a statement, we were ready to hear it; tell it in her own way, there was no difficulty about her talking — no complaint made any way; she talked a good deal about it. (Any intimation that she had been deceived at all?) Not a word. (What did she say about knowing of her pregnancy?) She said she did not know that she was in that condition until she had the child. (Do you know when the Good Templar’s fishing party was?) On Saturday, the 7th day of May, 1870, I believe; I was at Mr. Wood's house that night — *1 took supper there; the Rev. Mr. King took supper there; I left there about nine o’clock; Emma Chivers was not there that night; if she was she had hid away; I saw Mr. Wood and his family and this minister — I left them there; I think Mr. Wood went to the General Assembly (Synod) the week after the fishing party; I don’t know the day he started; I don’t know the exact day he returnd; I think about the fourth Sunday in March — that is my recollection — no, in May; the Assembly met in Louisville; they assembled on the 15th, I believe; Mr. Wood was in the country a good deal, visiting his congregations; he came from Lawrenceville with Mr. King; he had been up there; I don’t know how long. (What was the condition of Mrs. Wood’s health in 1868?) I sent my children to her school the first part of 1869; in 1868 she taught with Mr. Wood; it is about four hundred yards from her house to the school; I can’t say that she walked; she taught school in first part of 1869, in the Wadsworth house; I think she was taken sick in first part of 1869; I can’t tell of my own knowledge what was the matter with her; I came home at night when not prevented by business; I was here on Sabbath; I attended prayer meetings during the week; I saw Mrs. Wood on these occasions; she appeared to be in good health; it did not look like any one could have better health than she in 1868; she was a fine looking woman then and now; I know Mr. Moore’s daughters — they are my nieces; I don’t know their ages; in 1865 and 1866 they were girls not grown; the oldest was born somewhere about 1850; I think they were sent to Salem, North Carolina, after 1866; that is my recollection.
    
      Cross-examined: (Were you and Mr. Candler and Mr. Kirkpatrick sent to question this young lady about her connection with Mr. Wood?) I was not sent; I don’t know about Candler and Kirkpatrick; I went to see Mr. Kirkpatrick; I went to Mr. Wood’s house and found him.
    (Defense propose to swear Mr. George to contradict one of the State’s witnesses; State objected, as he was not put under the rule; witness was sworn.)
    ^Benjamin F. George, sworn: (Question by the Judge: “Did you hear any portion of Emma I. Chivers’ testimony about a ring?” Witness: “I don’t think I did; I heard a portion of the testimony read over.”) I clerked for Mr. Ramspeck in 1866, 1867, and 1868; I think I quit clerking for him in the first part of 1869. (Did Miss Emma I. Chivers, at any time, exhibit a plain gold ring to you in Mr. Ramspeck’s store?) I don’t remember that she did, though she may have done so. (Do you recollect being in the store at any time, and her exhibiting a gold ring to you?) I do not. (Was your attention ever attracted to a ring on her hand?) I have no such recollection; I don’t recollect anything about the ring; I don’t remember that she ever spoke to me at any time about a ring.
    
      Cross-examined: I may have seen a ring on her hand; I don’t say positively; I knew her well; she has been in the store often; I had many conversations with her; she might have had such a conversation; I may have forgotten it; I don’t say one way or the other. (Was she virtuous at that time?) As far as I know of my own knowledge, I never kissed or hugged her.
    
      Redirect-examination: I have visited her mother’s house; I know nothing about her virtue.
    J. R. DarnELE, M. D., sworn: I made entries in Mrs. Chivers’ Bible; it was the family record; I filled it out by her request. (Testimony objected to by the State. Defense wish to contradict statements of principal witness for the State. Judge: “You may prove a record but not the contents.”) I made a record in her Bible. (Did you ever make any changes in those entries?) 1 never made any changes or additions.
    
      Cross-examined: (Do you remember this, positively?) I remember it well enough to swear to it; I think I should have remembered if I had done it; I made the entries the year before the war — in 1860.
    :|iJames C. Avary, M. D., sworn: I am a practicing physician — I was in 1868 and 1869; I know when Mrs. Wood was sick — when I first saw her in 1869 — in March. (This witness testified as to the condition of Mrs. Wood’s health during the year 1869, and its results, testimony was ruled out and withdrawn from the jury, but defense allowed to show the condition of Mrs. Wood’s health about the time of the alleged offense. Do you know the condition of Mrs. Wood’s health before June, 1868?) I never heard of her being sick; I did not attend her for sickness; occasionally I saw her in passing to church and other places; she bore no evidence of bad health. (Defense wished to show the condition of Mrs. Wood’s health, for the purpose of contradicting the statements of Emma I. Olivers. Judge: “You may show the condition of her health before or about the time of the alleged seduction, but not after.”)
    L. J. Winn, sworn: (Were you acquainted with the condition of Mrs. Wood’s health in 1868?) I think I was; from February of that year till May I saw her perhaps two or three times a week; I think from June I saw her almost daily; her health was good; it was not so good in early spring; she suffered from attacks of nervous headache; latter part of spring and early summer she was looking better than I ever saw her; it was a subject of remark ; her appearance was very healthy; I know that was in June. (Are you acquainted with the Wadsworth house?) Yes, sir. (How are the inside doors?) The door to the room next Mr. Wood’s house, (east room,) that door opens into the other room, that is, in leaving the room you push the door from you. (Testimony objected to bjr the State, as the witness was not put under the rule; witness being an attorney, and counsel in the case, was excepted from the rule.) There are no door facings at all, there is a staple, but no lock to the door, that is its condition now; I can state there has been no alteration while I lived here; I remember some fifteen years ago there was an additional sill put to the house; I have been living here all *the time since the war, passing there two or three times daily; there have been no repairs since 1868, nothing about the doors; in 1868 I was in the house frequently, as there was a school there; after Mrs. Wood left it, they got up a ghost there; I went in and passed through the samé 'door; I think it is the same door; the condition of the door is nothing but rough planks, what we call sheeting, and if they were joined together originally, they have shrunk so as to leave great cracks in the door; above the door I could run my hand in it, or between the side where the door opens; it is more like a shutter than a door; I should so call it.
    
      Cross-examined: (Did you ever examine the door before 1868?) I never had examined buttons or fastenings; I was there in 1868; my statement as to the fastenings is based on my observations since 1868; I think there has been no new door for many years. (At the time the child was born, was there not á good deal of anxiety in Mr. Wood’s family for fear he was father of it?) No; on Friday after the child was born, I heardsome of the boys talking; (the child was born the previous night or early that morning;) I heard it whispered that there was a young preacher over by the depot; I heard it from several; that aroused my anxiety and curiosity to some extent; I knew she had lived at Mr. Wood’s house; I mentioned that to my wife; I did not know whether it was a mere rumor or the girl had said it; there was that anxiety that such a report might produce; I told Mr. R. ... on Saturday after, as we went up on the train, that there was considerable excitement at the depot; Dr. Durham, who, I heard, was present at the birth, said if what she said was true it would raise the worst stink that ever was in this country; I went to Atlanta; I went to Dr. Durham’s office and asked him the question directly who she had said was father of the child; he said that she had said Mr. Wood; I went to R... .’s store; I said, Hardy, who do you suppose is father of the child? He said, “Mr. Wood;” I said that is what I have heard; I was then speaking of what I had heard the day before.
    Here the defense closed, except the statement of defendant.
    ^STATEMENT OF MYRON D. WOOD.
    It is a source of satisfaction to me that I am able to make a statement in this case. I was desirous of making a statement on the previous trial. I am glad the opportunity is now offered me. I state it, intending to be brief as to the facts in the case, with the assertion that I do so under a solemn sense of my accountability to God and man, that I never seduced .Emma I. Chivers. I never in any single instance, in all my life, had any intercourse with her, and the facts stated in this indictment as to such intercourse are entirely false. In 1867, January of that year, the second or third day, I came to Decatur to take charge, as pastor, of the Presbyterian church of this place. I was slightly acquainted with Emma I. Chivers, from having met her in my father’s family. I knew hardly anything of Emma I. Chivers. I visited the family twice perhaps before June or July of 1867, in the regular course of my ministrations as pastor. At that time the school became vacant. Mr. Hunter, who had been teaching here, went away. I was told if I would take charge of the school it would be worth so much, if I could attend to the duties of the school and pastorate of the church. The school was offered to me; I consented to take it. Knowing that Mrs. Chivers had rendered considerable service and assistance during the war to my mother’s family, I told her that as far as her children were concerned, they should have tuition without charge, if she had two or three. She sent two. The offer was not a peculiar one— it was made to others. During the first term of the school — from, say August, 1867, to the close of the year, I noticed nothing peculiar about Emma Chivers. She was a constant attendant at school, a very good scholar. I remember but one thing, which was at the close of the term, that in a Eatin class composed of three persons she stood third, the others being unusually smart. Her mother then came to me and said Emma was discouraged about her Eatin, and said that she could not get along — the other two were so much better than she was, she was about to give up in despair. *The Latin lessons consisted of some translations from English into Latin and Latin into English. I told her mother I would assist her, as she was so much discouraged. Therefore, one evening, in coming from Mr. Winn’s, I stopped at her mother’s house, whether eight or ten o’clock, I don’t remember the hour; I don’t think it was as late as ten o’clock. There was a light in the room, so I had reason to believe the family were up; and as she wanted me to assist her in her lessons, I went in and did so. I remember the very passage I assisted her in translating. I had done so with other scholars when they asked me. I then went home, and I do most solemnly and earnestly avow that there was only one other single instance in which I gave her á private recitation, at my present residence — all her other lessons were heard in school. Further, as an act of kindness to her and her mother, Mr. Moore, of Atlanta, of the firm of Moore & Marsh, came to me near the depot and told me there were reports about Emma I. Chivers to the effect that her mother went off at night and allowed young men to stay with her too late at night. He said he knew nothing that was actually wrong having occurred, but the report is that young men have been there too late without a light in the house. I told Mrs. Chivers of that.as a friend and as her minister, and warned her to be more circumspect with regard to her daughter, if these facts were true, into which I did not inquire.
    - Now, we come to the time of her moving from her house across the railroad to the Wadsworth house. I had nothing in the world to do with that — before my Maker, I had nothing to do with getting Emma to the Wadsworth house. When they got there, I visited them occasionally — more often than I had done before, and the time of assisting her in her Latin translation was after she came over there, which I related just now.
    In regard to moving to my house, I had nothing to do with that; my own family know it, my mother knows it, my wife knows it, my children know it, as far as they have heard it talked about; the others know it positively. My mother *wanted,Mrs. Chivers to come over and cook, as she was a white person and responsible. My father’s health was poor, and my mother wanted Mrs. Chivers to assist in the family. I at first opposed it. Mrs. Chivers came over and said she would come in the day and cook, and go back home at night. There was talk-of her leaving her family alone. I told her she must not stay at our house and leave them alone; that is the only suggestion I made as to her moving to my house. I did not make that as a suggestion for her to move, but not to leave her children. It having been proposed by my mother that Mrs. Chivers should move, I agreed to it; my wife agreed to it.
    ■ I spoke to persons about reports I had heard. I spoke to Mr. Kirkpatrick; I asked him if these reports were true, or had any foundation. He said he had heard of them, but did not know if they had been investigated. My remark to him was, “Well, not as to anything actually bad, but only occasional indiscreet behaviour?” He said, “Yes, as to things actually bad, there had been, but had in a measure died out.” After that, I spoke to Mr. Robert Davis, an elder in my church, when at a meeting at Allen’s, (Lawrenceville,) in August, 1868. I asked him as to the character of the family. He said there might have been some talk, but people hoped for the best; he said after the war all persons were anxious to conceal and cover up what had been said and done during- the war; he said her daughter was a smart girl, and he hoped a good girl. I conversed also with Charles Rams-peck, in a buggy, going to Dawrenceville, on the same subject; he will remember the conversation. He stated to me that there was a young man by the name of D... .n who had said very harsh things about Emma, and that there was a young lady in this place who had said something about her character, but he did not believe a word of it; she was a perfect lady; he was glad she was going to my house, and hoped I would protect her and elevate her character. I told him I certainly should try to do so. They then came to my house. That is the history of it. They had only been there *a short time before I found that all was not right. I have never spoken against Mrs. drivers or her daughter, even when I had serious doubts about her conduct. A gentleman came and asked me, in confidence, if he should allow his daughters to associate with her. I told him I knew nothing; I concealed all I could; that gentleman is Mr. R. W. Swann. But I did not like Mrs. drivers’ actions in my household. My wife knows that she tried to produce discord in my family, between my wife, on one side, and my mother and father. It came to our knowledge that she did do that; that neither she nor her children spoke the truth, in instances which I will not now stop tó relate — the only reason is, I want to spare feelings, and not bring these things to the public notice. My family knows these things as well as I do, and could swear to them. These facts caused us to wish her to leave the house.
    Another circumstance. Emma Chivers, on one occasion, had thrown down a young lady, who visited our house, and exposed her person. I told her to stop; she did not do it; she looked at me in anger; I said, while you are in my house you must do as I say; she said, I can leave it; I said, you must leave it before night. I told her mother that unless she could be in obedience, she must leave; she afterwards came and begged pardon. I consented to let her remain till the year was out. I was glad when the- time came for them to leave.
    With regard to these matters set out in the indictment, as to the lane, and walking in the lane, I know nothing of these circumstances. I did walk home with her one time from the schoolhouse. I think the reason of that was, we had an exhibition, parties went to practice for it — I went; Emma was one of those parties, and her mother’s invariable request to me was, “Mr. Wood, don’t let the young men go with Emma,” and for that reason, without asking her specially to go home, I walked home with her — she did not even take my arm. That is the only occasion I remember walking home, or in the street in any way. I did that same thing in another case. *Mr. Wilson’s family lived about a mile from the village; his daughter came to the school-house to practice for the exhibition; I- escorted her home. Charles Ramspeck," Emma Chivers and Miss Maggie Morgan, were all along, and when we came back Emma and Charles went that way home. I never suspected anything wrong about it; that was the fact.
    In regard to seduction at the house, I know nothing about it; I will take my oath on it at any time; I know nothing about it. With.the exception of going to assist her in her Latin, I know of no time of going to the house, except going early in the evening, in the way of a visit, and that very seldom. I did go to Atlanta about that time, and previously several times, and came back at night. I can explain it. It was in term time; I was teaching-school; books had to be bought for scholars coming in; we had a regular set of books; I was accustomed to go and buy those books from Phillips & Crew, and bring them home, when the package was not too large, and having them sent by the train when it was too large, and myself coming home at night because there was no train, sometimes walking, so as to be home at school in the morning. My family was always informed of my business,- and when I should come back, frequently at about nine or ten o’clock at night. Mr. Candler is acquainted with it, and knows it. That is all I know about going to Atlanta and coming back at night.
    In regard to my .telling Emma that I made seduction an object of prayer, I will die with the assertion on my lips that I never told her so. I never told her that I loved her better than my wife. I always told her that I loved my wife better than any one in the world. I know she has heard me say that, as I have said it in presence of others. When my wifq was sick in 1869 — one of our respectable doctors, Doctor Durham, heard what I say — there was some danger to her life unless there should be relief (by medical means) of the child, or she should have abortion. I said to the doctor, with tears in my eyes, the child is nothing, a thousand children are nothing- — save my wife. That was in 1869, six or eight *months after the time when this witness said I told her my wife would not live over two years!
    In reference to the matter of congeniality, it may be that I told her our minds were congenial. I might have told her so; but as to congeniality of heart, or love, I never breathed such a thing to her. I never tried to wrong or injure her or her mother in any way. I might perhaps be asked why she should say all these things. I frequently say I don’t know. I have thought of a good many things. My idea is that her mother formed an intense hatred to me from things that took place at our house, and that Emma and her mother are capable of anything. And, God knows, I do not say it in a spirit of uncharitableness, but simply in self-defense and in answer to these statements presented by these witnesses. I say now — whatever will be the result and issue of this whole matter — if the life of that child is spared, it will be my vindication. I know it is not my child. I said to her mother when I first heard of it, in the excitement of sudden passion, I told her she lied when she said it. I know it is not my child. As soon as I heard it, I went to Mrs. Chivers and she would not let me see her daughter. She said Emma was too sick. I told her what my friends had told me that Emma had said, that I had sent for her and had ruined her, and other stories. I had heard there were two or three stories. Mrs. Chivers’ reply was, “none but some ladies know these things, and they took a solemn oath not to mention it.” I said to Mrs. Chivers, “you know that stone (pointing to a large one,) can be the father of her child as soon as I can.” She said she never thought anything of the kind, but that Emma was not in her right mind; when she was in her right mind, she would let'me know, and I could have a conversation with her. She said in the meantime her daughter could not be spoken to by me or any one on the subject.
    In regard to what witnesses said about my absence — I allude to the witness, Mr. Andrew Collier: On the 16th of January, my wife received a letter from a certain J. D. Gardner, of Troy, Alabama, formerly of the firm of Gardner, * Worthy & Worthy. The letter ran in this way: “Dear Madam— I recently had a conversation with a citizen here, in this county, Mr. Collier, who told me things in regard to the trial of your husband, M. D. Wood, which I think would be invaluable to you in procuring a pardon for your husband from Governor Smith. Mr. Collier speaks from his own knowledge and his affidavit would be positive.”
    These were the words in the letter. Judge Hillyer read the letter, and has it. Mr. Lester and you (Mr. Candler) were not, here. I gave the letter to Judge Hillyer. When it was received, I, my wife and Judge Hillyer read it. We were the only persons that knew of. it. I wrote to this Mr. Gardner and, after some time, Judge Hillyer wrote a letter in reply to him. Mr. Andrew Collier wrote, under cover of a letter to his brother, a reply to Judge Hillyer’s letter; that letter was shown to me, in which he stated what he knew. I then told Mr. Henry Hillyer to go and see about it, as the witness was out of the State, and his interrogatories in such a case would be of no avail. His reply to me was, “you had better go,” and after conversing on the subject, I-agreed to go and try to persuade the young man to come to this State and give his testimony, that we knew was in the letter. I got to Troy on Friday night; he lived nineteen miles from Troy. I hired a buggy and set out in the storm and snow; it sleeted and blew a hurricane, blowing down trees on the route. I went to Mr. Collier’s and came back by five o’clock next morning. I saw him not more than one and a half hours, and conversed in presence of the man who had driven me in the buggy. I asked what he knew, and if he would come and testify. He consented. I went back that night, in order to get back to the train and be home on Saturday, so as to be in time for Court here on Monday. That is all I know about that.
    I have only one word to say more, it is this: It is á satisfaction to me to know there is not a single member of my family believes ' I am guilty. (Judge Hillyer: “About the scene at Mrs. Morgan’s?”) That I have already spoken of. *She may have been at Mrs. Morgan’s that night, I don’t remember. I walked with her from that neighborhood; there was no agreement or understanding to meet there. (Any plan?) No, sir. (Judge Hillyer: “Was Mr. Ballinger there, and did you suggest to escort Emma home?”) No, sir, nothing of the kind.
    There is no member of my family believes me guilty. My wife said, when this matter came out, “Of all the women in this State, Emma I. Chivers is the last I should have thought would have attracted you, Mr. Wood.” She had no jealous feelings towards or in regard to Emma Chivers at all; and if she could testify, could prove an alibi. She would take her oath that, from circumstances which may occur in any family, when I slept in the study I always had the door open; it was never shut; it was absolutely impossible for any one to come in there without my wife knowing it. She would testify in reference to the room above; there is but a floor; she can hear the moving of a chair, or any conversation. As the door from that room opens on the back piazza, from there on to the piazza and into her room was my usual way. She never went to sleep till I came down. We frequently conversed between the two rooms. She would say, “You must come down now, for I want to go to sleep.” I would shut the door and go down. And when this girl says I was with her, my wife knows I was with her. I say I never had carnal knowledge of Emma I. Chivers in my life. (Judge Hillyer: “The prisoner consents to be cross-examined.”)
    No cross-examination.
    STATE, in reply.
    Charles M. RamspECk, re-introduced: (State whether, at
    any time, you ever came out of Mrs. Chivers’ house at daylight?) That is positively false; I never did. (Is it true that you were in the habit of frequently leaving there between midnight and daylight?) Not to my knowledge, I never left at that time; I have staid there till probably twelve o’clock; I never knew of any young men leaving her house between ^midnight and daylight; I never walked down the railroad, hugging
    Miss Emma Chivers, or her hugging me.
    Harriet H. Chivers, re-introduced: (Who made Emma’s dresses in 1867?) . I have always made them; her dresses buttoned behind in Í867; she had one calico dress in 1867; the first time was after we moved to Mr. Wood’s house, when her dress buttoned in front; I think that was in the summer of 1868; I lived in the house with Mr. Wood from August or July, and lived there till next October. (Did you quarrel with him?) No, sir, no quarrel; there was something; he had, at one time, a quarrel with Emma; what was said, I did not hear; I was in the kitchen; that is the only time that I remember; that was in regard to a carpet that was put down on the floor; Mr. Wood never told me to take Emma off the‘place.
    Closed for State.
    defense in rebuttal.
    W. D. Kirkpatrick, re-introduced: (Do you know what kind of a dress Emma I. Chivers wore at school in 1866 and 1867?) I think she wore a dress open in front — most of the large girls did; she was considered one of the large girls; I think J know, of my own knowledge, that it opened in front.
    
      ■Cross-examined: I never had my hand in it; I never kissed ■or hugged her; I knew most of the larger girls; I did not notice her dress more than others; I looked at that part of their dresses; I frequently look at a woman’s breast; I am certain of it that hers opened in front.
    The Court chared the jury as follows:
    “Gentlemen of the Jury: The defendant is charged with the seduction of Emma I. Chivers. He begins the trial with the presumption of innocence in his favor. The law presumes that every man is innocent until the contrary is shown. The State makes the charge, and the proof in the case must it. It must appear beyond a reasonable *doubt that the defendant is guilty. The extent to which your minds must be convinced is a matter to which your attention will naturally be directed. Absolute certainty cannot be attained by the testimony of witnesses in Court; it is possible that any, that all human testimony may be wrong or untrue. The possibility of error is inherent in the very nature of it. Hence it is, that a fact is not required to be established to an absolute certainty. A reasonable and moral certainty is what the law requires. To authorize a verdict of guilty, you must have a certain degree of mental assurance or conviction. The inquiry is, whether the guilt of the defendant is established to a moral and reasonable certainty ? Before you act in matters of the highest concern to yourselves, your minds are convinced to a certain degree of the propriety of your action. That is the degree of mental conviction that is required in this case. You, carefully and impartially, examine the testimony for the sole purpose of ascertaining the truth. After such an ■examination of the testimony, is the mind unsettled, wavering, unsatisfied ? If it is, that is the reasonable doubt of the law, and produces an acquittal. This doubt must be a reasonable one, such as rests upon the mind of an impartial juror who is searching for the truth. It must grow out of the testimony, or spring from the want of testimony. You cannot imagine that this or that may or may not be so, create a doubt and then act upon it. It must be a reasonable doubt, honestly and fairly entertained by an honest and fair-minded man who seeks only the truth. If such a doubt exists, you should acquit; if it does not exist, it would be your duty to convict.
    “The defendant is allowed to make such statement, not under oath, as he may deem proper in his defense. It is to have such weight as you may deem proper to give it.
    “It is alleged in the indictment, that'the defendant by persuasion and promises of marriage, and by certain false and fraudulent means therein set forth, did seduce Emma I. Chivers, a virtuous unmarried female and induce her to yield to-*his lustful embraces, and allow him to have carnal knowledge of her.
    “It must appear from the testimony, that she was, at the date of the alleged .seduction, a virtuous unmarried female. The test is to be applied to her at that date, and not at a subsequent period. The presumption of the law is, that she was virtuous, and that presumption remains until removed by the proof. She must have had personal chastity. If she, at that time, had never had unlawful sexual intercourse with man; if no man had then carnally known her, she was a virtuous female within the meaning of this law. If man had then carnally known her, had had unlawful sexual intercourse with her, she was not a virtuous female within the meaning of this law.
    “If it appears that she was a virtuous unmarried female, it must further appear that the defendant seduced her; that he led her aside from the path of virtue; that he induced her to part with her virtue, and to allow him to have carnal knowledge of her, by the persuasion and promise of marriage, or by the other alleged false and fraudulent means that are set out in the indictment. Did he use the persuasion and make the promise to marry her, as is alleged in the indictment, for the purpose of deceiving her and of inducing her to allow him to have carnal knowledge cf her, and did the persuasion and promise of marriage, when so used, mislead and deceive her, and induce her to yield to his lustful . embraces and allow him to have carnal knowledge of her. If so, he would be guilty; if otherwise, he would not be.
    “Did he use or employ any of the means set out in the indictment ? If he did, were they or any of them, in the manner that h'e used them, false? Did he employ them for the purpose of deceiving her, and of inducing her to yield to his lustful embraces, and allow him to have carnal knowledge of her, and did they, or any of them, when so used, mislead and deceive her, and induce her to allow him to have carnal knowledge of her? If so, he would be guilty; otherwise, he would not be. It matters not whether the persuasion and promise *of marriage, or the other false and fraudulent means were used at the precise time the carnal knowledge was had. In this respect, it matters not when they were used, if they induced her to yield to his lustful embraces and allow him to have the carnal knowledge. The carnal knowledge must have been the result of the use of the persuasion and promise of marriage, or the other false and fraudulent means. If the female was induced to yield to his lustful embraces, and allow him to have carnal knowledge of her in consequence of her own lustful desire; if she was not mislead or deceived, and induced to yield and allow it, in the manner stated, but did yield to him and allow the intercourse for some other reason, or from some other cause, he would not be guilty of seduction.
    “The object of the testimony is to enlighten your minds in reference to the issue formed. You are the judges of the testimony — you pass upon its credibility. As a rule, every witness is to be believed until impeached according to some of the modes known to the law. You will take each witness, just as he or she may be presented to you by the case, and determine what degree of credit his or her testimony is entitled to here. In judging of the credibility of the witnesses, you will look to the manner of the witness in testifying — the inherent probability or improbability of the testimony given. A witness may be impeached by proof of contradictory statements. When that is done, it is a question for the jury to determine, in view of all the testimony, how far the witness is to be believed. If a witness, from inadvertence, or accident, or failure of memory, makes a false statement, the jury are to determine how far such statement affects his or her credit, and to what extent he or she is to be believed. If a witness, willfully, knowingly and corruptly, swears falsely— that is, of wicked purpose, knowingly swears falsely, intending to do so, such witness is not to be believed, and the matters stated by such witness are not to be taken as true, unless they are established by other testimony. The relation that the witnesses bear to the case, their feeling, and all the testimony *in the case, are to be looked to in passing upon their credibility. The testimony is to be reconciled, if it can be done, but if it is irreconcilable, then you must determine whom you will believe. These rules apply to all the witnesses, to those of the State and to those of the defendant; to those who are introduced to prove contradictory statements, as well as to those who are said to have made the statements.
    “A juror can look only to the law and the testimony for his verdict. He cannot appeal to, or consult, his own private knowledge of either, or of both of the parties, or of any fact. He can consider no evidence or fact but that which he hears from the witnesses in open Court; upon that his verdict must be based. Look to the testimony! Accept these parties and the witnesses as they are made to appear by the testimony. Try- — test them all by that, keeping constantly in view the great controlling object of your inquiry, which is an earnest, honest, impartial effort to learn the truth. It matters not to you what may be the consequences of your verdict — for the consequences, you are not responsible. It is your duty to make a true verdict, and there your duty and your responsibility end. The trial has been a long one, and you have been greatly taxed. All of you have served at personal inconvenience, and some of you have served under the most trying circumstances. But a public necessity existed, and you have cheerfully made the sacrifice. Preserve your patience and impartiality unto the end. Nerve yourselves for a faithful discharge of your duty. Dispassionately consider the case, and as you may find, so write your verdict.”
    The jury returned a verdict of guilty; whereupon the defendant moved in arrest of judgment on the ground “that the indictment did not contain any sufficient allegation of crime against the defendant, to authorize judgment or sentence against him thereon.” The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
    The defendant moved for a new trial upon the following grounds:
    *lst. Because the Court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the special plea in bar of said indictment.
    2d. Because the Court erred in admitting evidence over the objection of defendant’s counsel, going to show that the defendant had used means to keep young men from visiting and associating with Emma I. Chivers, and to induce her to avoid the company and association of young men; and that her mother agreed to the employment of such means, and to place the said Emma I. Chivers and her education entirely under the defendant’s charge and control; and that the defendant told the said Emma I. Chivers that she was his favorite pupil and he wished her to trust him wholly, and that as she had no one to depend on, he wanted to keep her from annoyance; and that he had a particular secret to tell her, but could not do so unless the)' became more intimate than they then were; and that the defendant and the said Emma I. kept up a correspondence by letters; and that the defendant gave her a ring as a pledge of his promise to marry; and that he brought about her removal to his own house, and continued intercourse and sexual connection with her for more than two years after the loss of her virtue; and that she ■gave birth to a child of which the defendant was the father; and that she yielded to the defendant because he was her pastor, and was her superior, and because she thought he knew better than she what was right and what was wrong, and that she thought he was so noble and pure, and that she had perfect confidence in him, and she thought everything he said was right.
    3d. Because the Court erred in admitting evidence over the objection of counsel for defendant, tending to show means used and persuasions employed by defendant to seduce the said Emma I. Chivers, which were not specified in the indictment, and which also went to show means used after the alleged seduction.
    4th. Because the Court erred in the following charge to-the jury: “The presumption of law is, that she (Emma I. Chivers, the female alleged to have been seduced) was virtuous, and that presumption remains until removed by the proof. *She must have had personal chastity. If she, at the time of the alleged seduction, had never had unlawful sexual
    'intercourse with man, if no man had then carnally known her, had had sexual intercourse with her, she was a virtuous female within the meaning of this law.”
    “Did he (the defendant) use the persuasion and make the promise to marry her (Emma I. Chivers) as is alleged in the. indictment, for the purpose of deceiving her, and of inducing her to allow him to have carnal knowledge of her, and did the persuasion and promise of marriage, when so used, mislead and deceive her, and induce her to yield to his lustful embraces, and ■ allow him to have carnal knowledge of her ? If so, he would be guilty; if otherwise, he would not be.”
    i he employ or use any means set out ment? If he did, were they, or any of them, in the manner that he used them, -false? Did he employ them for the purpose of deceiving her, and of inducing her to yield to his lustful embraces, and to allow him to have carnal knowledge of her, and did they, or any of them, when so used, mislead and deceive her and induce her to allow him to have carnal knowledge of her ?. If so, he would be guilty, otherwise, he would not be.”
    5th. Because the Court erred in refusing to charge the jury the eleven following written requests:
    1. “A man may have unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman,' and not be guilty of the crime of seduction. There is a wide distinction between the crime of adultery and fornication, and the crime of seduction. Under the laws of this State, the offense of seduction can only be committed by persuasion and promises of marriage, or by some false and fraudulent means other than persuasion and promises of marriage.”
    2. “Before you can convict the defendant of the charge in this bill of indictment, you must be satisfied from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that before and at the time of the alleged seduction, Emma I. Chivers was an unmarried female, and that
    she was virtuous, that is to say, that she was chaste, pure, unpolluted and uncorrupted, and that Myron D. *Wood, finding her thus virtuous, did, by persuasion and promises of marriage, or by some other false and fraudulent means, seduce her, and induce her to yield to his lustful embraces, and allow him to have carnal knowledge of her.”
    3. “If you are satisfied from the evidence, that at the time of-the alleged seduction, Myron D. Wood was a married man, living and cohabiting with a lawful wife, and that Emma I. Chivers knew that fact, and knew that Wood could not lawfully marry her, and could not make to her a valid or lawful promise of marriage,then you could not find him guilty of seducing Emma I. Chivers, by persuasion and promises of marriage, because a married man who is living and cohabiting with a lawful wife, and that fact is known to the woman who is alleged to have been seduced, cannot, in law, be guilty of seducing her by persuasion and promises of marriage.” .
    4. “Before you can find the defendant guilty of seducing Emma I. Chivers, by false and fraudulent means, the' evidence must satisfy you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he told her some falsehood, something that was not true, and the evidence must further satisfy your minds that what he said was not only false, but fraudulent, and that she was deceived by it, and that she was induced by it to allow the defendant to have carnal knowledge of her; because, if what Wood said was false, and Emma I. Chivers knew it was false, and was not deceived by it, and did not act upon it, he would not be guilty of seduction, under the laws of this State.”
    5. “If you believe from the evidence that Wood told Miss Chivers that he would marry her when his wife should die, and that his wife could not live long, and was in bad health, such a promise is contrary to public policy and social morality, and would not support an indictment for seduction, and is not one of the false and fraudulent means, of which the law speaks, in defining the crime of seduction.”
    6. “If you believe from the evidence that Wood told Miss Chivers that it was not wrong for her to yield herself to him, when she knew that it was wrong, and that it was contrary to the Bible, and contrary to morality and virtue, then she was *not deceived or defrauded by that assertion. And if you believe that Wood told her that he would not harm her, when she knew that what he was endeavoring to do would ruin her morally and socially, then she was not deceived or defrauded by that assertion. And if you believe that Wood told her that his -passion for her was pure and holy, when she knew it was lustful, and that he was seeking to gratify it by sexual intercourse, then she was not deceived or defrauded by that assertion.”
    7. “Testimony to warrant a conviction in a criminal case, should come from the lips of a credible and truthful witness, and hence the law declares that if a witness swear willfully false upon any one material point, the jury are at liberty to disregard her testimony altogether, unless corroborated by circumstances, or by unimpeachable evidence.”
    8. “Where the only witness to a transaction testifies falsely to a leading fact, respecting which there could be no mistake or misapprehension, her credit will not be restored so as authorize a conviction upon her testimony alone, although she may be corroborated as to immaterial matters by other witnesses or circumstances.”
    9. “If a witness swears willfully and knowingly false, even to a .collateral fact, her testimony ought to be rejected entirely, unless it be so corroborated by circumstances, or other unimpeachable evidence, as to be irresistible.”
    10. “One reason for disbelieving a witness is the improbability or impossibility of her story; another reason for discrediting her is the fact that in her own testimony, she discloses acts done by her, and habits of life pursued by her, which exhibit moral turpitude in herself.”
    11. “The credit of a female witness may be impeached by proof that she is a common prostitute.”
    6th. Because the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and the evidence.
    
      ' The motion for a new trial was overruled, and the defendant excepted upon each of the aforesaid grounds. ‘ .
    *Hiee & Candrer; George N. Lester, for plaintiff in error.
    . 1st. The presiding Judge erred in overruling the special plea in bar of the indictment, because, in this State, a man who is known to the female alleged to be seduced, to be a married man, living and cohabiting with a lawful wife, cannot be guilty of the crime of seduction: See Code of Georgia, section 4305, which is the same section that defines the crime, and provides that “the prosecution may be stopped at any time by the marriage of the parties, or a bona fide and continuing offer to marry on the part of the seducer:” See, also, Mann vs. The State, 34 Georgia Reports, 1; The People vs. Alger, 1 Parker’s Criminal Reports, 333.
    ■ 2d. The presiding Judge erred in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment as alleged.
    3d. The presiding Judge erred in admitting the evidence specified in the second, third and fourth grounds of the motion for a new trial made by the defendant in this case, because said testimony was illegal, irrelevant, outside of the case made in the indictment, and established a state of facts of which the defendant was not put upon notice, and which he, therefore, could not and did not come prepared to meet on the trial; and because the admission of said testimony violated the old and familiar principle of law, that the allegations and proof must agree. This testimony being illegal, its admission is good ground for a new trial: See Code of Georgia, section, 3663.
    . 4th. The presiding Judge erred in charging the jury, “that the presumption of law was, that the female alleged to have been seduced was virtuous, and that that presumption remained until removed by the proof:” See 1 Bishop on Criminal Procedure, section 1061; West vs. The State, 1 Wisconsin Reports, 209.
    5th. The presiding Judge erred in charging the jury, “that if, at the time of the alleged seduction, the female alleged to have been seduced had never had unlawful sexual intercourse
    281 *with man, and if no man had then carnally known her, she was a virtuous female within the meaning of the law:”
    See Zell’s Encyclopedia, which defines the word “virtuous” to be, “chaste, pure, unpolluted, as a virtuous womanWebster’s Dictionary, which defines the word “virtuous” to be, “chaste, pure;” Andre vs. The State, 5 Iowa Reports, 389; Bock vs. The State, 5 Iowa Reports, 430; The People vs. McArdee, 5 Parker’s Criminal Reports, 180; Kenzon vs. The People, 26 New York Reports, 203; 2 Bishop’s Criminal Law, section 1019.
    6th. The presiding Judge erred in charging the jury, “that if the defendant used the persuasion and made the promise to marry, as alleged in the indictment, for the purpose of deceiving the female alleged to have been seduced, and of inducing her to allow him to have carnal knowledge, of her, and the persuasion and promise of marriage, when so used did mislead and deceive her, and induce her to yield to his lustful embraces and allow him to have carnal knowledge of her, the defendant was guilty.”
    7th. The presiding Judge erred in charging the jury, “that if the defendant used or employed any of the means set out in the indictment, and any of them, in the manner that he used them, were false, and he employed them for the purpose of deceiving Miss Chivers, and of inducing her to )deld to his lustful embraces, and to allow him to have carnal knowledge of her, and such means, when so used, had that effect, the defendant was guilty.” An analysis of the indictment will demonstrate the impropriety of this charge. If erroneous and hurtful to the defendant, a new trial ought to be granted: See Code of Georgia, section 3664.
    8th. The presiding Judge erred in refusing to charge the jury as requested, which requests are all copied in the bill of exceptions. If the charges requested were pertinent and legal,' the refusal to give them is a good ground for a new trial: See Code of Georgia, section 3664. The first request ought to have been given, because it embodies both truth and law, and was directly pertinent to the issue of the case. So of the *second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth requests. The defendant rested his defense upon the idea, first, that he never had any sexual intercourse ■ with Miss Chivers at all, and, second, that if the jury should think otherwise, such intercourse, under the proof, did not amount to seduction, but was adultery and fornication only. Hence, it was the defendant's right to have the law as to seduction, and as to adultery and fornication, and the difference between the two clearly defined, so that the' jury might judge from the evidence as applied to the law, of which crime, if either, he was guilty: See 12 Georgia Reports, 142, head-note 6; 15 Ibid,.. 189, head-notes 2, 3. 4; 17 Ibid., 444; 17 Ibid,., 497, head-note 13; 21 Ibid., 310; 24 Ibid., 505, headnote 6; 29 Ibid., 594, head-note 1; 30 Ibid., 133; 32 Ibid., 515; 38 Ibid., 252; 44 Ibid., 128, head-note 2; Ibid., 173, head-note 5.
    The seventh request should have been given, because the proof justified it; it contained sound law, and was pertinent to the issues of the case: See 13 Georgia Reports, 508, head-note 4.
    The eighth request should have been given: See 23 Georgia, Reports, 297.
    The ninth request should have been given: See 23 Georgia Reports, 576, head-note 3.
    The tenth and eleventh requests should have been given: See 29 Georgia Reports, 266, head-note 1; 30 Ibid., 888, head-note 2.
    John . T. GeEnn, Solicitor General; PEEPEES & PIoweee; George T. Fry, for the State:
    
      
      Criminal Law — Seduction—Representations.—A bare statement by a married man to a virtuous unmarried woman, that the sexual intercourse is not wrongj, coupled with solicitations to her to consent to the act, will not justify his conviction for seduction. But if coupled with that statement he employ other false and fraudulent means, as if by spiritual exhortations or by reason of any peculiar relation existing between them by and through which he exercises a controlling influence over .her mind and will, he induce her to consent he will be guilty of seduction. Disharoon v. State; 95 Ga. 355, 22 S. E. Rep. 698, citing principal case. See Ency. Dig. Ga. Rep., vol. 11, p. 459.
    
    
      
      Same — Same—Distinction between Persuasion and Fraud. — “This court in the noted case of Wood v. State, 48 Ga. 192, distinctly and in terms recognized the distinction between seduction accomplished by persuasion and promise of marriage, and seduction brought about by false and fraudulent means of a different character.” Langston v. State, 109 Ga. 154, 35 S. E. Rep. 166.
      Same — Same—Virtue of Prosecutrix — Question for Jury. — “In Wood v. State, 48 Ga. 389, it was said, that the question of what is a virtuous woman ought to be left in each case to the jury.” O’Neill v. State, 85 Ga. 406, 11 S. E. Rep. 856. See Ency. Dig. Ga. Rep., vol. 11, p. 459.
      Proof of Subsequent Acts of Intercourse with Other Persons.— See note, to Mann v. State, 34 Ga. 1, where the principal case is cited.
    
    
      
      Same — Same—Verdict—Duty of Court. — The holding of the 9th headnote is quoted in Trowbridge v. State, 74 Ga. 433. See also, Speer v. State, 60 Ga. 383; Watson v. State, 116 Ga. 611, 43 S. E. Rep. 33.
    
    
      
      Trippe, Judge, dissented from McCay, Judge, on this proposition as follows: “It was not error for the Court to charge, ‘The presumption of law is that the female alleged to have been seduced was virtuous, and that presumption remains until removed by proof. She must have personal chastity. If she at the time of the alleged seduction had never had unlawful intercourse with man, if no man had then carnally known her, she was a virtuous female within the meaning of the law. If man had then carnally known her, had had carnal intercourse with her, she is not a virtuous female within the meaning of the law.’ ”
    
   McCay, Judge.

By the laws of this State, seduction is treated as a most heinous crime, and is punished with the very longest period of penal servitude known to the Code, except that of perpetual imprisonment. If the crime be in fact committed, this is a most just and salutary law, since it is hardly possible to conceive of a more base and dastardly deed. It is a grievous *wrong, done by a selfish, heartless villain, against a helpless and innocent victim, and it is most justly denounced by all good people as a fiendish offense against God and against society. The man who is guilty of it has betrayed and ruined a woman; has, by artful and fraudulent practices, seduced her from the paths of virtue, inspired her with lustful desires, and, finally, led her, perhaps, at last, a willing victim to crime. It is this deliberate, fraudulent, artful leading into crime of a trusting, pure-minded girl from chaste thoughts and pure desires, that gives such moral turpitude to the offense. Of the actual fornication both are guilty — guilty even under human laws — and both are subject to the same penalty. It is the seduction of the woman by the man that forms the gist of, gives the name to, and makes the heinousness of this offense. Neither the language nor the spirit of the statute makes the crime to consist solely of procuring, by fraudulent means or otherwise, a woman hitherto undebauched to allow of illegal sexual intercourse with her. The means used must be fraudulent and deceitful, and must “seduce a virtuous unmarried female — induce her to submit to the lustful embraces of the seducer, and allow him to have sexual intercourse with her.” All the language, and all the sentences and clauses have a meaning. The woman must be seduced — led away from virtue — induced to permit lustful embraces, and, finally, to commit the crime of fornication. And this is the invariable history of cases of seduction. The seducer first gets the confidence of his victim by a promise of marriage, or by some other fraudulent means; he next seduces her away from modest and pure and chaste thoughts; then follows lustful toyings and-lascivious embraces, until the poor girl, her confidence betrayed, her chaste thoughts turned into lustful desires, alloivs and consents to crime. The woman who, in consideration of a promise of marriage, consents to fornication with the promisor, is not seduced. She sells herself just as completely as if she had given the same consent in consideration of a promise of money. The whole purport of the statute, its fundamental, essential idea, is, that the seducer has, by his arts, first defiled the heart, and made *lust and desire to dwell where he found chastity and purity, and having thus disarmed his victim, procured an easy surrender. He must “seduce a virtuous unmarried female, and induce her to submit to his lustful embraces and allow him to have sexual intercourse with her.”

An indictment would not be a good one under this law, if it simply charged that the defendant had, by persuasion and promise of marriage, procured a virtuous unmarried woman to allow him to have illegal sexual intercourse with her. The words and the sense of the statute require it to be stated that the woman has been “seduced and induced to submit to the lustful embraces of the seducer, and allow him to have carnal connection with her.” Each of these phrases is something more than mere tautology and useless verbiage, and is to be treated as having a meaning, and they are all significant of the legislative will.

I have been thus particular in expressing my understanding of what it is that makes the crime of seduction, because it almost necessarily follows that if this be the meaning of the statute, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

The indictment upon which the trial was had contains three counts. 1st. One charging the seduction by persuasion and promises of marriage. 2d. One charging the seduction by false and fraudulent means. 3d. One charging it by persuasion and promises of marriage, and by false and fraudulent means. The second and third counts, whilst they charge the seduction by false and fraudulent means both set forth, as a part of the false and fraudulent means, the persuasion and promise of marriage, relied on and set forth in the first count. The promise of marriage set forth is to this effect: That .he (the defendant) would marry the said Emma I. Chivers, so soon as his wife should die, he at the same time, saying that his wife was in bad health and would die in less than two years. To the whole indictment, as well as to each count of it, the defendant pleaded a special plea'1 in bar, as well as not guilty. This special plea was to the effect that at the time the said crime was charged to have been committed, as well as for *several years previous thereto, the defendant was a married man, living daily with his wife and children, and that this was well known to Miss Chivers, who was a sensible and well educated woman.

To this plea there was a demurrer, and the demurrer was sustained by the Court and the plea stricken.

So far as this was a plea in bar to the whole indictment, we think the Court was right. The issue presented by the plea assumed the law to be that a married man, known by the woman’ seduced to be such, cannot, under any circumstances, whether by promise of marriage or otherwise, be guilty of the crime of seduction.

We are not prepared to admit this to be the law. The words of this section of the Code are: “Any person, who, by persuasion and promise of marriage, or by other false and fraudulent means, shall seduce a virtuous unmarried female,” etc. There is also a provision that the defendant may condone the offense by marrying the woman seduced, or by a bona ñde, continuing offer to marry.

•It is contended that as the female seduced must be unmarried, and as there is a provision for condonation by marriage or by an offer of marriage, it was intended that a married man could not be guilty of the offense. But we can see various reasons why this is not a fair construction of the law. A married woman is better skilled against the arts of the seducer than the in-, genuous, simple-minded girl, and she cannot so surely be treated as the victim of a villain. Besides, the words of the law are not any unmarried man, but “any person,” and we think it is straining that portion of the section which permits the condonation beyond its meaning to give it the effect contended for. It is rather an aggravation of the wrong that even the reparation permitted is impossible. The act has two clauses. “If any person, by persuasion and promise of marriage, or by other false and fraudulent means, shall seduce,” etc.

That a married man may be guilty of seducing, by false and fraudulent means, a woman who knows he is married, is, *we think, incontestible. He may win her confidence in many ways. He may be her guardian, her near kinsman. He may, as is charged in this case, be her teacher and spiritual adviser; she may honestly and chastely honor, confide in and trust him. She may look to him as the fountain of truth and purity, so that his acts, his words and his opinions shall be to her as those of a God. Under such a state of circumstances, the girl' is as much a victim as though her confidence were the product of that tender and confiding relation existing between plighted lovers, bound by pledges to be consummated at the altar of marriage. Indeed, as all experience has proven, the influence which a priest may acquire over a devotee is, perhaps, of all others, the most complete, and whilst she may by it be led to a purer life and to a holier condition, it is possible that she may be led by it blindfold into sins of the deepest die. We do not think, therefore, that this plea was a good plea in bar to the whole indictment. But whilst we so rule, we are, at the same time, of opinion that the plea was a good plea in bar to the first count of the indictment — the count charging the seduction on the persuasion and promise of marriage alone. According to our understanding of this statute, it requires that the woman should be betrayed by some sort of false and fraudulent means. The statute says by persuasion and promise of marriage, or other false and fraudulent means. In this is implied that the promise must also be a fraud, one calculated to deceive, one that may win the confidence and allay the suspicions of ah artless, unsuspecting maiden. Can a promise of marriage made by a man having already a wife, with whom he is at the time living, and this well known to the woman receiving the pledge, have such an effect? Can a woman of ordinary sense, who has allowed such a promise to win her confidence, claim to have been seduced by arts and persuasions into the sin of fornication ? Can she be said to be a victim if she has trusted to the vows of a married man that he would marry her, knozving as she does that he cannot and will not marry her? We think not. The woman who listens to such a promise is either a fool or she is a bad woman already. The Confidence of no good woman could be acquired by any such a promise. It could not be made the means of seduction. It is upon its very face a warning to beware. It is a promise so improper in itself, so contrary to all notions of delicacy, true virtue and good morals, that any girl of even ordinary chastity must instead of confiding in, be shocked by it. No reasonable human being could confide in such a promise or be betrayed by it into confidence in the man who made it. The girl who listens to such a promise is not betrayed, and if under such an excuse as that she toys and is finally a criminal, she is not seduced, but has run, of her own lusts, into sin.

By the way in which this indictment is drawn, whilst this promise of marriage is made a leading ingredient in each count, yet as only the first count is based on persuasion and promise of marriage alone, the plea though a good plea in bar to that does not meet all the false ánd fraudulent means charged in the other two counts. We think, therefore, that even if the plea were fully sustained by proof on the trial, there was still matter set forth, which if true, would authorize a judgment.

It is complained that the Judge erred in charging the jury that if the defendant seduced Miss Chivers by any of the means charged, he was guilty. As the promise of marriage is set forth in each count, and is alleged to be one of the fraudulent means by which the seduction was effected, it follows from what I have said that this charge was error. To make a fraud, there must be confidence and a betrayal of it. A pretence, that is upon its face a sham, that can deceive nobody, that no modest woman would listen to for a moment, cannot beget confidence, and cannot be the means of betrayal.

Again, it is charged as error that the Court told the jury that if the girl had never before had carnal sexual intercourse with a man, she was a virtuous woman in the sense of the statute, and that the law presumed her to be such until it was otherwise proven. I am disposed to agree with the Judge as to the presumption of law. It is true the law presumes the prisoner innocent until he is proven guilty; but it does not follow that, in making out this proof, the State can use no *presumptions. The law will presume, for instance, that the prisoner is a sane man; it will presume malice from certain acts; it will presume that the sun rose and set, as it has always done; it will presume that witnesses tell the truth, unless something appears to the contrary. Indeed, as is well settled ope may be found guilty of even murder on proof of facts from which ■his guilt is presumed. The natural, normal condition of an unmarried female is virtuous. If she be less than this, it is a fault, and it ought not to be presumed in any investigation. But I do not agree with his Honor in his charge as to what constitutes a virtuous woman in the sense of this section of the Code. The whole of the section is to be taken together, and the word virtuous is to have such a meaning as does not make other parts of the section meaningless. Under the definition the Judge gave to the jury of this word, it means simply a woman who has never before been guilty of fornication or adultery. She may be a bad woman at heart; she may be filled with all uncleanness; she may be burning with lust, and yet, if, through lack of opportunity, she be yet not an actual violator of the law, she is a virtuous woman in the sense of this law, and one may be guilty of the fiendish crime of seducing her, inducing her to submit to his lustful embraces, and to allow of criminal intercourse.

I do not think so. It needs no fraud or vile arts to make an actual criminal of such a woman. , She cannot be seduced from virtuous, chaste thoughts to lustful desires and lacivious passions —she is there already; and the man who, by promise and persuasion, gets her to break the law, has only violated the last clause of this statute. The crime he commits is neither within the letter nor the spirit of this law. The woman is not a victim.

It is said no other distinct line can be drawn than' that drawn by the Judge. And that is true. But where is the necessity of any fixed line at all? The persuasions, the arts and frauds of ■the defendant in committing the crime are not, and cannot be so reduced to exactness. Why should the character of the woman be determined only by a rigid rule ? She is not *on trial. If it were a crime not to be virtuous, there would be propriety in fixing the terms of the crime, to use words that would show precisely how the guilt should be proven. But here the crime is the seduction of virtue, and I can see no propriety in any Other line than that which satisfies the mind of the jury. It is said, too, that facts which under one set of circumstances show want of virtue — that is, of a chaste mind — might not do so in other circumstances. But this is true, even if the standard be as contended for. In this State the acts and practices described by Mr. Irving as common even between virtuous minded people among the Knickerbockers, or by Hogg and Scott, among the Scotch, would justify a jury in finding actual guilt before the law.

In my judgment the question of what is a virtuous woman ought to be left in each case to the jury, since so far as it is evidenced by circumstances, it must depend upon education and on the state of society in which the girl has been reared. To require the defendant, in order to defend himself from a criminal charge, to start with a presumption of the virtue of a girl, and prove her want of virtue in this sense by actual direct proof, is absurd. The woman herself cannot be compelled to answer, no man can be made to swear, since a witness cannot be required to confess a crime. Such things are invariably done in secret and the proof would be practically impossible. Nor is the reply to the position I have taken that this rule takes away the protection of the law .from a girl who, playfully or in the mere spirit of fun or flirtation, and from habits of life or the customs of society, does acts which squeamish people deem improper. This utterly misconceives the position I have taken. I insist upon it that a woman is not* a “virtuous woman” whose heart is lascivious, whose mind is corrupted and defiled by lustful desires and unchaste wishes, and that this may be proven by other facts than ■proof that will satisfy the mind of an act punishable by law. What that evidence may be or may not be, I would leave to the facts of each case. Do they satisfy the jury that the girl is impure, lustful, lascivious, that her heart has gone *away from virtue, that however her body may yet be not actually defiled, yet that all true chastity has ceased within her, and that it needs no arts or seductions, but only opportunity, for her to be guilty of the act of crime ? The definition given by the Judge makes a virtuous woman to be one of a certain physical condition.

Virtue is a thing of the heart and mind. A woman who has been guilty of fornication has done an act showing that she is not of a virtuous heart, or, at least, that she was not at the time of the act. The evidence, it is true, is very conclusive, but it does not at all follow that she is a virtuous woman because she has not broken the law, no more than it follows that a man is honest because he has not violated the law against stealing.

To be guilty of the crime of seduction is one thing, and to induce a woman to commit fornication is another. The crime of seduction involves purity of heart and a chaste mind in the woman seduced. She must be led away from virtue. The definition of the Judge would exclude a woman who, years before, had been guilty of fornication, but who had repented and was now perfectly virtuous; perhaps the more so that she once had sinned and repented in sackcloth and ashe.s. And this definition of a seducible woman is, as I believe, contrary to the general sense of the word, as used both in England and America.

In the United States, seduction is made a crime, in several of the States, to-wit: in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Min-1 nesota, Iowa, Oregon, and in other States. In all of these States the crime consists in seducing a “hitherto chaste female,” or “of previous chaste character,” or “of good repute for chastity,” and in none of them, so far as I can find, has it ever been held that actual criminal sexual intercourse is the only test of unchastity. It is hardly to be supposed that it was the intention of our Legislature to lower the legal standard to be applied to the victim of the seducer. We all speak the English language. The poetry and the literature of our mother tongue, which fix the meaning of words, have painted the character *of a seducer in terrible colors, and it is a fair presumption, especially in construing a criminal law against the prisoner, that this is the character, the betrayer of female innocence, that was intended to be punished. This is the character punished in other States; this is the natural, long understood meaning of the words, and this, in my judgment, is the only sense of the word which will make the different clauses of this statute all have a meaning, and rescue it from (what appears to have been its understanding in this trial,) the imputation of being an act to punish a man who buys a woman to consent to gratify his lust by a promise to marry her, a consideration which may or may not be better than a money consideration, according to the character of the man who pays the price. I think, too, that this Court, in the case of Mann vs. The State, 34 Georgia, 1, virtually decided this question. In that case, Mann had been convicted of violating this very law. This Court granted him a new trial, because he had, after the trial, discovered he could prove by a witness that before the seduction he had seen the woman, after night, come out of her father’s house with a man with whom she was on familiar terms, go some fifty yards from the house and lay down, and that, from what he had known of the girl, it was his opinion that she was of easy virtue. Surely this would not prove the girl to be guilty of fornication, and the Court, in granting a new trial, could only have done so because the proof would show the woman not to be a modest, pure minded woman. The proof made in this case by Collier is such that, if true, this girl was not a good girl before Wood met her. The charge of the Court, in effect, withdrew this evidence from the jury as proof of a want of chastity, because it did not show actual crime.

In this, I think, there was error. If Collier told the truth this girl was not seduced. She was ripe for crime already, and only needed the chance to fall into it in fact. I do not intend by this to say that the jury were bound to believe Collier, but I think the Court erred in his charge by declaring to the jury, in effect, that the defendant might be guilty *though Collier spoke the truth. No girl, in my judgment, who is so far given up to unchaste thoughts and lustful desires as Collier testifies to, can, in any fair sense of those words, be called a virtuous female. It is a perversion of terms that shocks all sense of propriety in the use of- language. As the case went to the jury, this evidence of Collier, Kirkpatrick and others, was before them only to contradict Miss Chivers when she swore that no man except Wood had been guilty of such freedom with her person. It was only ther,e as to her credit. In our judgment it was entitled, if true, to far more weight than this. It went to show that Wood was not guilty, that the whole story — of an innocent, pure-minded girl, wrapped up in holy reverence for her minister, and led by him, through her confidence in his sanctity, to believe a lie and go into sin, thinking it right — is all a sham. The girl who thus plays with a viper, who thus stands upon the brink of the river of vice and indicates her readiness to plunge into its polluted waters, is not the material of which saintly devotees are made. She has drank of the fountain of carnal desire. The eyes 'of such a woman are opened; her ideas of morality and holiness are not at the behest of a saintly hypocrite; she is too old, too much of earth and of the flesh, to be borne off to those serene heights where her saintly heart may be beguiled into thinking wrong, right, and lasciviousness, purity. One can conceive of simplicity and innocence thus wrapped up in a supposed apostle, but if Collier’s story be true, this girl was not capable of losing herself in any such fanaticism.

We think there was error also in the refusal to charge, as requested by defendant’s counsel, that “one reason for disbelieving a female witness is the fact that the witness discloses in her testimony acts done by her and habits of life pursued by her which exhibit moral turpitude.”..

This is the precise language of this Court, in the case of McDaniel vs. Walker, 29 Georgia, 180, and it is law if the facts of this case make it pertinent. One female witness here testified, that for eighteen months she had been in the practice of frequent illegal sexual commerce with the pastor of the *church to which she belonged; that she was in the frequent habit of going from the prayer meeting to their place of guilt; that she would of her own motion follow him to his home, wait until his family prayers were concluded, and then steal from her hiding place into his study, where, almost in sight of his wife and children, she would join with him in the violation of all the laws of God aüd man, and even of decency, and then go her way alone to her mother’s house, she, too, all the while, a member of his church and communing with him and her fellow members. Such guilt, duplicity and hypocrisy is very great, and it was proper matter for the jury to call to mind in fixing the credit to be given to her statements.

Tt seems absurd to say that the prisoner is not to have the benefit of any doubt of the truthfulness of such a witness, because he was the author of and joined in it.

That is what is to be tried, and such a position assumes his guilt. The law presumes he is innocent until proven guilty, and this position that against him the woman is to be believed, because he is guilty, takes for granted the whole issue on trial.

Nor can it be said that this charge was improper as asked, because it points out too clearly the witness and amounts to a presumption of the fact. The Judge can only charge upon points involved in the evidence, and if the statement of the law is so pertinent to the facts before the jury as to make it fit with startling accuracy, that is no reason why the law should not be given.

It would be a very liberal construction indeed to say that this request was given under the general remarks of the Judge as to the credibility of witnesses. It is only by rather a strained inference that such a view can be sustained. All that can fairly be said is, that the charge as given is not inconsistent with this request. But our statute means more than this. It says that a new trial may be granted if the Judge refuse to give a pertinent legal written request in the language requested. Revised Code, section 3664.

It is ordinarily proper to give the charge in the language requested ; surely that is contemplated by the statute. True, *it sometimes happens that this is verbose, wanting in precision, and we would not make it necessarily error to refuse the exact language. But clearly, the party has a right to have his written request, if it be legal, pertinent and material, given distinctly and in substance. It ought not to be left to the mere inference of the jury, unless that inference be very plain and necessary.

We think there was error in refusing to draw the distinction between seduction and fornication and adultery, because, in our opinion, the jury might, under the indictment, and under the evidence, have found the defendant guilty of adultery and fornication. It is a settled rule that-under a charge of a higher offense of the same nature, if the higher necessarily includes the lower, the jury may find the defendant guilty of the lower. As in murder, the jury may convict of manslaughter, assault and battery, or even of assault. Seduction is a felony. It necessarily includes the other. One cannot be guilty of seduction unless he be also, as part of the same act, guilty of adultery or fornication. On the principle that on an indictment for the felony, the jury may find defendant guilty of the mere misdemeanor, it would seem to follow that under an indictment for seduction the prisoner may, if the proof justify it, be found guilty of' adultery or fornication, as the facts show which of the offenses it is. In New York this very question has been so decided, and the general rule, where the larger offense includes the lesser, -is well settled by the decisions of our own Court.

Judgment reversed.

Trippe, Judge,

concurring.

The plea in this case makes the issue whether a married man, whose marriage is known to the female alleged to be seduced, can commit the crime of seduction by persuasion and promises of marriage. The words of the law are: “If any person shall, by persuasion and promises of marriage, or by other false and fraudulent means, seduce a virtuous unmarried female, and induce her to yield to his lustful embraces, and *allow him to have carnal knowledge of her, such person, on conviction, shall be punished,” etc.

The first count in the indictment charges the seduction to have been accomplished by persuasion and promises of marriage. The second count charges “other false and fraudulent means.” The third count charges both persuasion and promises of marriage, and other false and fraudulent means. The plea was filed to all the counts, and agreed by the State to apply to each and all. The’State demurred to the plea, the demurrer was sustained, and the plea disallowed as to either or any of the counts. Thus the Court below held that a married man, wh»se marriage- was known to the alleged victim, could commit the crime of seduction by persuasion and promise of marriage. That judgment is brought here for review.

What was the object of the statute? It was not to make adultery or fornication an offense and punishable. That had been done before. It was not to make fornication, when committed by persons between whom there existed an engagement to marry, more penal than it already was, simply because of that engagement. The statutes of some of the States do this, but in each such statute, or in the decisions construing them, it is provided or held that the man must be unmarried, or not known to the woman to be married. The great object of those statutes, and of ours, and of all such law givers, must have been to prevent the sacred promise of marriage — the promise to become one— the promise of taking the vow of love and fidelity and protection for life — from being made a means of destroying the character, the peace and happiness of one who accepts and confides in that promise. It was to protect the honor and purity of woman from an attack by a seducer, armed with all the power and influence that such a promise must give.

If a woman be in danger from a seducer, the power and chances of that seducer are greatly increased when she surrenders her heart, and the strong bond of promised marriage exists between them. Just there this wise and salutary law — salutary if not perverted — steps in and says to the lustful outlaw, *“If you make the promise to enter into that relation which the law of God and man sanctions, approves and invites, and public policy demands — an instrument to debauch virtue and ruin her who has trusted to it — the brand of the felon shall be upon you.” I repeat, such a law is wise, prudent and salutary. It punishes with severity a most odious crime, and protects virtue where -its defenses are overreached by the false pretences or fraudulent artifices of the spy and the traitor. Rut to say that a promise of marriage, no matter by whom made, whether the man be married or not, whether the promise be impossible or not, shall or can be the means of seducing a “virtuous unmarried female,” and shall be punishable, in case of such a seduction, with the same ignominious penalty, is to confound all gradations of punishment, and to vindicate the assumed wrongs of one who leaps to her ruin, as strongly as the wrongs of one who has been cheated, blinded and defrauded to her ruin by falsehood and fraud. No rule of the civil Code grades its penalties on such a basis.

A false and fraudulent promise of marriage, trusted in by the woman, has, doubtless, often been, and may be again, the means of seducing a “virtuous unmarried female;” and though, by her fall, she may draw the finger of scorn upon her, yet the law becomes her avenger and punishes her wrong-doer, because, by his falsehood, she is defrauded to her ruin. But for her, or any one, or the law, to ascribe her wrongs or ruin to a promise which she knezv was both false and impossible of performance; to say she was seduced by listening to a promise as degrading to her by listening to it as to the one who made it; by a promise of a man of what she knew he did not have, is as utterly at variance with the true wisdom of all law and sound morals as it would be for her to claim the sympathy and vindicative protection of the law for yielding herself by a promise of a palace from a pauper, or of a crown from a beggar. As well might she say a bauble or a penny was her price, as that a known barren, worthless, promise won her.

Surely the law does not set up her virtue as of such great worth, that it must be vindicated by such high penalties. But *it may be said that if the law so declares, it matter.*' not what may be thought of its wisdom or the consistency of its logic, it must be administered as it is written. This is true, but it is none the less the duty of a Court to construe and define the meaning of the law when a question for construction arises. The words of the law are: “Shall by persuasion and promises of marriage, or other false and fraudulent means seduce a virtuous unmarried female,” etc. No one can .deny that the “other means,” other than promise of marriage, must be “false and fraudulent.” Those are the very words of the law. “False” means that which is not true, coupled with a lying intent “Fraudulent” is something that will deceive, cheat, mislead, inducing a belief in what is not true and action on such belief. Can it be fairly claimed that all the other means must be false ana fraudulent, believed in by the victim, and she deceived by them, but it matters not whether the promise of marriage was false or fraudulent or believed in, or whether she was deceived by it or not? This would make mere words — words known to be nothing but an empty sound — vox et proeterea nihil, constitute an essential in a most infamous crime. It would only be equaled by that construction of the old English statute making it treason to imagine the death of the King, where it was held, that the owner of an inn called “The Crown,” on urging his son to do his duty, because he would be heir to the Crown, was guilty of treason in imagining the death of the King, for no one could inherit from the King until he was dead. The whole spirit of our law, the reason and the context seem to require the construction, that the promise of marriage must be made under cirsumstances that would not only make it false, but the victim of that promise must be deceived by it. This she could not be if she knew the promise could not be performed.

Again: It is said that the promise might be made by a man who was married and his marriage not known to the woman. What I have said meets this point and implies that by such a promise the crime of seduction could be committed under the law.

*It is further said that the promise might be conditionally made, to-wit: on the event of a divorce, or the expected death of the wife, and a virtuous female misled or deceived by such a promise. The indictment does charge this latter condition, that is, that the death of the wife was expected, ©r it was believed or stated by the defendant to Miss Olivers' that his wife would not live longer than two years, and he would then marry her. I will not dismiss this as was done by a Judge in his reply to a similár point, by the single remark “that such a promise would be void as against public policy, I have no doubt whatever.”

Doubtless such a promise would be void. But a higher ground' may be taken in reply. Such a promise and such negotiations are not only void as against public policy, but the public policy that would allow no woman damages for a breach of a marriage promise so made, still less would vindicate her if she gave up her virtue by means of such a promise, and in such vindication impose a longer term of imprisonment upon the alleged wrong doer than for any other crime save one that is punishable by death or imprisonment for life. The man who would thus act might deserve such a fate, but I do not think that any law or lawgiver would give as a reason for the punishment that he had seduced a virtuous unmarried female. The moral crime against the dying wife might call for any penalty, but hardly any law would punish the act as a wrong against her, who would by her own showing exhibit herself as unworthy of any defender. Least of all, could such a woman thus bartering her virtue, claim to be a “virtuous female” seduced by promise of marriage, and I do not think that such a promise or such a character comes within the scope of the provisions of the law. The man who thus acts, who comes within either class that I have been considering, may be vile and a criminal, he is vile and a criminal, and would be punished on conviction, but not for what he is not and cannot be in such cases, the seducer of a virtuous unmarried female by persuasion and promise of marriage.

But few laws of a similar kind to ours have been brought *under notice in the argument of this case. One statute, that of Wisconsin, excludes all idea, by its very terms, that a married man can seduce by or under a promise of marriage, or that a promise of marriage from a married man can have any agency in seduction. The statute is, “any unmarried man who, under promise of marriage, or any married man who shall seduce,’’etc. The law-makers there did not seem to think such a thing possible as seduction by a married man under a promise of marriage. In New York the statute says nothing of a married man, but provides a punishment for seduction “under promise of marriage.” Under that act it was held in two cases that a married man, known to the woman to be married, cannot be guilty of seduction “under promise of marriage.” The Court in pronouncing judgment say: “To call such an engagement a promise of marriage would be a flagrant perversion of all legal sense and learning.” 1 Parker’s Criminal Reports, 333.

I do not think the Court erred in charging that “the presumption of law is that the female alleged to have been seduced was virtuous, and that presumption remains until removed by proof. She must have personal chastity. If she, at the time of the alleged seduction, had never had unlawful sexual intercourse with man, if no man had then carnally known her, she was a virtuous female within the meaning of the law. If man had then carnally known her, had had sexual intercourse with her, she is not a virtuous female within the meaning of the law.” The proof of lascivious indulgences and wanton dalliances, with other evidence short of direct proof of the overt act, may authorize a jury to infer actual guilt, the illicit act. In the eye of the law a woman is virtuous unless she is guilty of sexual intercourse. She may do wild and wanton things, but unless she be legally guilty, she is legally virtuous. If she does not violate the law, she does not forfeit the protection of the law. Any other standard in law would seem to set up too loose a rule for the guidance of juries, and what would be held by one jury as showing a want of virtue, would be considered by another as ^innocent. If a jury believe from the evidence that the illicit act has been committed, the want of virtue is then shown. This may be shown by circumstances as well as by direct proof.

I concur with my brother McCay as to .the right of the defendant to have had the request in relation to the credibility of a witness given in charge; and the more especially was it his right where his conviction may be had on the uncorroborated evidence of the woman alleged to have been seduced. The statutes on this point, in several of the States and of the United States, require the woman’s testimony to be corroborated. I have found no statute that does not require this, except our own. Where a defendant is thus exposed, he is entitled specially to the right to have all legal and proper principles applicable to the case to be given in charge to the jury. I also concur on the other points in his opinion on which the judgment of this Court is given, and generally in his reasoning thereon, except as to the point wherein I have above expressed a different opinion, and I concur in the judgment reversing the judgment of the Court below, and granting a new trial.

Warner, Chief Justice,

dissenting.

The defendant was indicted for the seduction of Emma E Chivers, an unmarried female, under the provisions of the 4305th section of the Code, which declares that, “if any person shall, by persuasion and promises of marriage, or other false and fraudulent means, seduce a virtuous unmarried female, and induce her to yield to his lustful embraces, and allow him to have carnal knowledge of her, such person, on conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment and labor in the penitentiary for a term not less than two nor longer than twenty years. The prosecution may be stopped at any time by the marriage of the parties, or a bona fide offer to marry on the part of the seducer.”

When the defendant was arraigned, he filed a plea in bar of the indictment, alleging therein that he was a married man at the time the offense is alleged to have been committed, and had been so for more than eleven years; had a lawful wife, *with whom he was then cohabiting, and three children, which was well known to the said Emma I. Chivers, and could not have been a party to a contract of marriage, etc.

The counsel for the State demurred to the plea, which was sustained by the Court,' and the defendant excepted. The question made by the defendant’s plea is, whether a married man, known to be so by the female alleged to have been seduced, can be indicted and convicted under the before recited section of the Code, This section of the Code, it will be perceiv*d, is not restricted, by its terms, to unmarried men, but declares that if any person shall, bypersuasion and promises of-marriage, or other false and fraudulent means, seduce a virtuous unmarried female, etc. The fact that the seducer cannot repair the injury done by marriage, because he is already married, does not lessen the offense, but is an aggravation of it. It might as well be said that if an unmarried man should seduce a virtuous unmarried female, by persuasion and promise of marriage, and should afterwards marry another woman, that he could not be convicted and punished because he could not then repair the injury by marriage of the victim of his lust. This section of the Code should receive a reasonable construction, that the injury done to the seduced female may be repaired by the seducer by marriage, when it can ¿awfully be done. But it is said the seduced female in this case fcnew at the time that the defendant could not marry her, and, therefore, she was not deceived by him, that she acted in her own wrong. The reply is, that the provisions of the statute are aimed at the seducer, and not at his victim; besides, it is alleged in the indictment that the defendant’s wife was in bad health and could not live long, and tlv.t he promised to marry her after his wife’s death.

The mother of the human race was tempted and fell, ana the object and theory of our law is to punish the tempter, the seducer, whether he be a married or an unmarried man. If the defendant truthfully represented to Miss Chivers that his wife was in bad health and could not live long, and promised to marry her after his. wife’s death, and thereby persuaded and *induced her to yield to his lustful embraces, and allowed him to have carnal knowledge of her, then he would be guilty of seduction under the provisions of the Code. If the defendant falsely and fraudulently represented to her that his wife was in bad health and could not live long, when in fact she was not in bad health, and conditionally promised to marry her as before stated, and thereby persuaded and induced her to yield to his lustful embraces, etc., then he would be guilty of seduction, notwithstanding he was a married man.

Persuasion and promises of marriage are not the only means contemplated by the statute by which a virtuous unmarried female may be seduced. The statute did not intend to enumerate all the means to which the artful seducer might resort to accomplish his purpose, but if he promises marriage, or by “other false and fraudulent means,” seduces a virtuous unmarried female, he would be guilty of seduction, although he might not have promised marriage. The other means employed to accomplish his purpose, as contemplated by the statute, must be such as the law will recognize to be false and fraudulent, according to the legal .sense of those words, as applicable to the facts of the case. As if the defendant although a'married man, being the pastor of the church of which the young unmarried female was a member and her school teacher, as is disclosed by the evidence in this record, having her entire confidence, told her that he loved her, and asked her to return his love, and if she would allow him to be intimate with her he would not harm her, would not hurt her feelings for the world, that he had thought of all this before and knew it was not .wrong; had made it a subject of prayer, had prayed to be directed right, that his conscience did not smite him for the course he was taking, that he believed if it had been wrong that Providence would have interposed some way to prevent it, that he had that much confidence in God that he believed that some obstacle would have been interposed to their intimacy, that his wife did not love him and had refused to have anything to do with him, that he had no one in whom he could place confidence, , and begged her to trust him wholly, and not to be so ^reserved, that she must know that if he did anything wrong it would hurt him as much as her, that she might know that he would not injure himself, etc.

In view of the relative position which this unmarried femala occupied'towards the defendant, the means employed by him to seduce her, come within the definition of “other false and fraudulent means,” as contemplated by the statute, and the fact that he was a married man at the time, and that his victim knew it, does not protect him against the crime of seduction, as charged in the indictment, and, in my judgment, there was no error in sustaining the demurrer to the defendant’s plea. The object and intention of the statute was to protect the virtue of unmarried females against seduction, by married as well as unmarried men, either by persuasion and promises of marriage, absolute or conditional, or by other false and fraudulent means, and to punish the offender therefor in the Courts, so as to prevent the injured parties or their friends from seeking redress by the punishment of the offender with their own hands. The statute is a beneficial one, and I am not disposed, as a judicial magistrate, to restrict its operation so as to defeat its object and manifest intention. The motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled.

The offense as charged in each count in the indictment is sufficiently technical and correct, and states it in the terms and language of the Code, and so plainly, that the nature of the offense charged might have been easily understood by the jury. It is only necessary to allege in the indictment such facts as make out the offense under the provisions of the Code. All the evidence expected to be. introduced on the trial need not be set forth in the indictment, and, therefore, there was no error in the Court in admitting evidence pertinent to the issue on trial, because it was not set forth therein.

It is insisted that the Court erred in charging the jury “that the presumption of law is that she, Emma I. Olivers, the female .alleged to have been seduced, was virtuous, and that presumption remains until removed by proof. She must have personal chastity. If she, at the time of the alleged seduction, *had never had unlawful sexual intercourse with man, if no man had then carnal knowledge of her, she was a virtuous female within the meaning of the law. If man had then carnal knowledge of her, had had sexual intercourse with her, she was not a virtuous female within the meaning of the law.”

This charge of the Court was, in my judgment^ a correct interpretation of what the statute means by a virtuous unmarried female. If the unmarried females in this State are not, in the eye of the law, presumed to be virtuous until the contrary is shown, the condition of our unmarried females is quite different from what I have always supposed it to be, and cannot, by my judgment, sanction the contrary presumption that they are not virtuous, but must affirmatively prove 'that they are so. The presumption of the law is that all of our unmarried females are virtuous, and that the reverse thereof is the exception. The proposition contended for, as applicable to our unmarried females in this State, is simply monstrous. The public morals of our people have not yet become so corrupted that the law will presume that our unmarried females are not virtuous, and if such a state of things existed, it would be a very cogent reason why the statute against seduction should be enforced for the protection of society generally.

But it is said the Court erred in its charge, in not submitting the question to the jury, under the evidence of Collier and others, whether Miss Chivers was a virtuous unmarried female, as contemplated by the statute, at the time of her alleged seduction by the defendant. The Court did charge the jury that if she had never had unlawful sexual intercourse with man, if no man had then had carnal knowledge of her, she was a virtuous female, within the meaning of the law, but if man had then carnal knowledge of her, had had unlawful sexual intercourse with her, she was not a virtuous female, within the meaning of the law. If that was not the proper standard by which a virtuous female should be tested, in the sense of the statute, what shall be the proper standard? If *she had her pristine virtue at the time the defendant seduced her, and he deprived her of it, was she not a virtuous female, in the sense that word is used in the statute? Will the wayward, imprudent acts of a school girl, the allowing improper liberties to be taken with her person in play, or otherwise, rebut the presumption of the law that she is a virtuous female, in the sense of the statute, and that she has had carnal knowledge of a man? In the estimation of some people, if an unmarried female wears her dress too short or too low, and thereby exposes her person, she might not be considered a virtuous female.

What shall be the test of a virtuous unmarried female, in the sense and meaning of the statute, unless we adopt that as stated by the Court in its charge to the jury? In my judgment, so long as an unmarried female retains her personal chastity, she is a virtuous unmarried female, within the true intent and meaning of the statute, and that he who persuades or induces her to surrender to him that personal chastity, in the manner as prescribed therein, is a seducer; in other words, if no man has ever before deprived the unmarried female of her personal chastity, the first man that unlawfully does so is the seducer of a virtuous unmarried female, as contemplated by the statute.

In this case, the female alleged to have been seduced had not only the presumption of the law in favor of her being virtuous, but she stated positively, in her evidence, that no man had ever had carnal knowledge of her but the defendant. Was there anything in the evidence of the defendant which, in the judgment of the law, would rebut the presumption of her being a virtuous unmarried female, in the sense of the statute, and her sworn statement that she was so at the time of the alleged seduction?

Whether the jury believed the statements of Collier, I do not know, that was a question for them, but what were his statements in relation to Miss Chivers’ personal chastity? In 18^7, he went to school with her to the defendant; she called him to her one day in the school room, and told him to sit by her, *he did so, and she took his hand, put it inside her bosotn next to her skin, he felt her legs, hugged and kissed her. At another time, she told him that she would let him sleep with, her that night, provided her mother was absent, agreed to gc, but did not, was sick. At another time, one day about two o’clock, she sort of pulled up her clothes and asked him if he did not .want to feel her legs; this was near the school-house where the boys were playing ball; she also told him one day in the school-house, that if he would call on her some night like a decent young man, and after he went out, wait on the railroad about half an hour or so, she would come out and meet him on the railroad; that arrangement was never consummated, was sick, and went home to Alabama, where he lived then and now. Take all this evidence of Collier to be true, and what of it ? Does it prove that any man had carnal knowledge of her person, or that she was not a virtuous unmarried female in the sense of the statute, at the time of the alleged seduction by the defendant? The law presumes her to have been so, and she swore positively that she was so. So far as the evidence of Collier is concerned, admitting it all to be true, the citadel of her virtue remained intact; it was not captured by him, or any other man, up to the time of the alleged seduction by the defendant, so far as the evidence shows. It is somewhat remarkable, however, that Collier, being about nineteen or twenty years of age, who was so much tempted by this young lady, according to his account of it, did not imprové the opportunities so gratuitously and repeatedly offered to him.

After all, the question on this branch of the case for the jury to decide, was whether Miss Chivers was a virtuous unmarried female at the time of the alleged seduction by the defendant, within the meaning of the statute; had she ever before that time had carnal knowledge of a man? Was she in possession of her personal chastity at that time, and did the defendant take it from her? The presumption of the law was in her favor, besides her positive evidence of the fact, and admitting all the evidence offered to prove the contrary *thereof to have been true, still, it falls very far short of being sufficient, under the law, to rebut that legal presumption, and the proven fact that she was, at the time of the seduction, a virtuous unmarried female, in the sense and meaning of the statute.

There is no evidence offered by the defendant which approximates to the establishment of the fact that she had carnal knowledge of any man prior to the alleged seduction. The evidence of Collier, if true, proves improper conduct on her part, but there is nothing in that evidence which would authorize the jury, under the law, to find that she had carnal knowledge of him, or any other man. I will not say that evidence of a man and woman being found in bed together, or other acts of a similar character, which, under the law, would raise a violent presumption of unlawful sexual intercourse between the parties, would not be sufficient evidence of carnal knowledge of each other to authorize the jury to so find; but there are no facts of that kind proved in this case, or any other facts which, under the law, would raise a violent presumption that she had had carnal knowledge of any man other than the defendant, and, for that reason, there was no error in the charge of the Court of which the defendant can complain. The Court ought not to have charged the jury upon an assumed state of facts not proved by the evidence, but the Court did charge the jury that she must have had personal chastity, that if man had carnally known her, had had unlawful sexual intercourse with her, she was not a virtuous female within the meaning of the law, and left the jury to decide that question, under the evidence, in relation to that point in the case, including Collier’s evidence, as well as that of the other witnesses.

Where is the evidence in this record that raises a violent presumption under the law, that Miss Olivers ever had at any time carnal knowledge of any man other than .the defendant, which would have authorized the Court to have charged the jury in relation to it? When a defendant is indicted on the criminal side of the Court for seducing a virtuous unmarried *female, it is not a good legal defense for him to black ball her character by proving loose declarations, imprudent or immodest conduct on the part of his victim; but he must go further, and prove that she had lost her personal chastity prior to his alleged seduction of her, or he must prove such facts as, under the law, would raise a violent presumption that she had done so, such facts as, under the law, would authorize a jury' to find that she had had unlawful sexual intercourse with a man. To hold otherwise will make the statute which was intended to protect the personal chastity of unmarried females not worth the paper on which it is written.

It was not the object of the statute to protect the defendant’s personal chastity, as the argument assumes, but the object of it was to protect the personal chastity of the unmarried female against his attempts to take it from her, no matter what may now be his pretexts or. excuses for depriving her of it. If she was such a notorious character as he would now have us to believe, why did he not have her excluded from the church of which he was the pastor. Is it a legal defense for him now to say that he was seduced to deprive her of her personal chastity? The argument amounts to just that and nothing more.

It was not a question of damages that was involved on the tiial of the accusation, or whether the defendant was guilty of the offense of adultery and fornication, but the question was did the defendant deprive the unmarried female of her personal chastity, as alleged in the indictment. If she had lost it before, then he did not deprive her of it, for he could not take from her that which she did not have. The. law, however, presumes that Miss Chivers was a virtuous unmarried female in the sense of the statute, at the time of the alleged seduction; she swore that she was, and taking all the evidence offered by the defendant to show the contrary thereof to be true, it is not sufficient, under the law, to have authorized the jury to find that she was not a virtuous unmarried límale as contemplated by the statute, and who could not have been seduced and deprived of her personal chastity by the defendant, as ^'alleged in the indictment. In my judgment, there was no error in the refusal of the Court to charge as requested or in the charge as given, of which the defendant had a right to complain, in view of the evidence contained in the record. If the jury believed the testimony of Miss Chivers and her mother, (and that was a question exclusively for their consideration) then the verdict was unquestionably right, and according to the repeated rulings of this Court, heretofore made, that verdict should not be disturbed. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment of the Court below should be affirmed.  