
    Commonwealth vs. Michael Reardon.
    On the trial of an indictment for rape, after evidence of a fresh pursuit of the offender by the description given by the prosecutrix, and of inquiries made by the pursuer, describing the offender’s dress, by which information was obtained which led to the defendant’s arrest, the testimony of the person of whom the inquiries were made is admissible for the defendant, to show that the dress so described differed from that worn by him at that time.
    Indictment for rape. At the trial in the court of common pleas, the district attorney introduced evidence tending to show a fresh pursuit of the offender by a constable and others, from the description given them by the prosecutrix; and that the constable traced the prisoner to a village, and there made inquizies for the prisoner by describing his dress, and found him, and arrested him.
    The defendant produced a witness of whom these inquiries were made, and proposed to ask him the description which the constable gave of the clothes by him said to have been worn by the ravisher, as tending to show that a different description was given then from the clothes actually worn by the prisoner on that day; and as also tending to show that the prosecutrix gave a different description then from that given by her on the trial; and also as a part of the inquiries made at the time of the pursuit. The district attorney objected, and Bishop, J. rejected the evidence. The defendant, being found guilty, alleged exceptions.
    
      B. F. Butler, for the defendant.
    
      J. H. Clifford, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.
   Thomas, J.

The object of the testimony introduced by the government was to identify the person arrested with the person committing the offence. It sought to show that identity by evidence of a fresh pursuit of the prisoner, from a description given by the prosecutrix, and of inquiries made by the pursuer for the person charged, by a description of his dress. The force of this evidence the prisoner sought to avoid by showing what inquiries were made, and then proving that the dress described by the person pursuing was different from that actually worn by him on that day.

The effect of the evidence given by the government was this: The prosecutrix accurately described the dress of the person committing the "offence. By inquiries for a person so dressed the prisoner was pursued and arrested.

The effect of the evidence offered by the prisoner was to control this, and to show that the description was not accurate; and that by giving a part of the same transaction, and, it would seem, of the same conversation. The evidence was, we think, clearly competent.

deceptions sustained.  