
    STATE v. E. B. STRICKLAND.
    (Filed 20 November, 1935.)
    Criminal Law G t>—
    In a prosecution for incest, testimony of the prosecuting witness that she was born before the marriage of her father, the defendant, and her mother, is irrelevant to the issixe, and its admission is held for reversible error as tending to prejudice or warp the judgment of the jury.
    Devin, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
    Appeal by defendant from Parlcer, J., at April Term, 1935, of SampsoN.
    New trial.
    
      Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Aiken for the Stale.
    
    
      N. W. Outlaw, Henry A. Grady, Jr., and Scott B. Berkeley for defendant, appellant.
    
   ScheNCK, J.

Two cases against the defendant, charging him with incest with his two daughters, respectively, were consolidated for the purpose of trial. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty of the charge with Esther Strickland and guilty of the charge with Bernice Strickland Hughes. From judgment of imprisonment the defendant appealed, assigning as error, inter alia, tbat tbe court admitted in evidence, over bis objection and declined to strike from tbe evidence upon bis motion, tbe testimony of Bernice Strickland Hughes, bis daughter, to tbe effect tbat she was born before her father, tbe defendant, and her mother were married. We think this assignment of error was well taken, and entitles tbe defendant to a new trial. This testimony was wholly irrelevant and collateral to tbe issue involved, and could easily have been harmful in its tendency to arouse tbe prejudice or warp tbe judgment of tbe jury, and its admission constituted prejudicial error. State v. Mikle, 81 N. C., 552; S. v. Jones, 93 N. C., 611; S. v. Freeman, 183 N. C., 743; S. v. Galloway, 188 N. C., 416.

New trial.

DbviN, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of this case.  