
    STATE v. B. V. HOUPE.
    (Filed 21 November, 1934.)
    1. Rape O c—
    Every element of tbe crime of having carnal knowledge of a female child under sixteen years of age, 3 O. S., 4209, being supported by the State’s evidence in this case, defendant’s motion as of nonsuit was properly denied.
    2. Rape O b—
    In a prosecution under 3 O. S., 4209, it is not error to exclude evidence of improper relations between the prosecuting witness and another several months after the alleged crime of the defendant.
    3. Criminal Raw G d—
    Testimony of conversations, offered to prove the facts therein alleged, is properly excluded when such testimony contains only conclusions of the witnesses of such facts.
    Appeal by defendant from Harding, J., at January Term, 1934, of Ieedell.
    Criminal prosecution, tried upon indictment charging tbe defendant with carnal knowledge of a female child between the ages of twelve and sixteen, in violation of 3 C. S., 4209.
    The evidence of the State tends to show that on 8 September, 1932, the defendant first had illicit intercourse with the prosecuting witness, at that time an innocent and virtuous girl fifteen years of age, and that this was repeated from time to time until 21 January, 1933, when the last act was committed. The prosecuting witness gave birth to a child on 22 October, 1933.
    Demurrer to the evidence or motion to nonsuit overruled. Exception. The defendant offered evidence tending to impeach or question the chastity of the prosecuting witness on 8 September, 1932, Ed. Shoemaker being named as consort.
    The defendant further offered to show friendly relations between the prosecuting witness and Ed. Shoemaker in April and May, 1933. This evidence was excluded. Objection; exception.
    The defendant also offered evidence of conversations between the prosecuting witness and her sister, relative to alleged improper relations with Ed. Shoemaker, and similar conversations between the sister of the prosecuting witness and their father. This evidence was excluded. Objection; exception.
    Verdict: Guilty as charged in the bill of indictment.
    Judgment: Eighteen months on the roads.
    Defendant appeals, assigning errors.
    
      
      Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorneys-General Seawell and Bruton for the State.
    
    
      Robert A. Collier, John R. McLaughlin, and J. G. Lewis for defendant.
    
   Stacy, C. J.

Tbe motion to nonsuit was properly overruled. Every element of tbe offense charged is supported by tbe State’s evidence. There was no error in excluding' evidence of improper relations between tbe prosecuting witness and another several months after tbe alleged crime of tbe defendant. S. v. Lang, 171 N. C., 778, 87 S. E., 957; S. v. Malonee, 154 N. C., 200, 69 S. E., 786.

Nor was it reversible error to exclude tbe conversations bad between tbe prosecuting witness and her sister and those between tbe sister of tbe prosecuting witness and their father. These conversations were offered to prove tbe facts therein alleged, when in reality they contained only conclusions of tbe witness. S. v. McLamb, 203 N. C., 442, 166 S. E., 507; S. v. Melvin, 194 N. C., 394, 139 S. E., 762.

"While tbe appeal might well be dismissed for failure to comply with tbe rules, still tbe exceptions have been considered.

No error.  