Mills v. Commonwealth
Supreme Court of Virginia
Error to a judgment of the Corporation Court of the city of Danville, rendered June 17, 1895, sentencing the plaintiff in error to confinement in the penitentiary for two years. The opinion states the evidence.
Read the full summary
Error to a judgment of the Corporation Court of the city of Danville, rendered June 17, 1895, sentencing the plaintiff in error to confinement in the penitentiary for two years. The opinion states the evidence. The first three instructions asked by the plaintiff in error and given by the trial court were as follows: “ The court instructs the jury that in order to convict the defendant, Mills, the prosecution must prove to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt— “First. That the prosecutrix, Berta Puryear, was, previous to the alleged seduction, of chaste character. “Second.…
1Opinion of the Court
Keith, P.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
S. D. Mills was indicted in the Corporation Court of the city of Danville at the June term, 1895, for seducing, under promise of marriage, Berta Püryear, a female of previous chaste character. Upon this indictment he was subsequently tried, found guilty, and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for the period of two years. To this judgment he obtained a writ of error from one of the judges of this court.
The .plaintiff in error asked for six instructions, the first three of which were granted ás asked for, and need not, therefore, be further…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hausenfluck v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1889
- Barker v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1894
3Cited by25 opinions
- Woodruff v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1904
- State v. JonesWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- Slaughter v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Varner v. WhiteSupreme Court of Virginia · 1927
- Miller v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1929
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.