Hinkle v. State

Appellant was convicted of seduction. He assigns that the court erred in overruling his motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment.

*239The indictment stated all the elements of the crime as defined in the statute, §2078 Burns 1901, §1992 R. S. 1881 and Horner 1897. This was sufficient. State v. Stogdel, 13 Ind. 565; Stinehouse v. State, 47 Ind. 17; Callahan v. State, 63 Ind. 198, 30 Am. Rep. 211; 19 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 415; Gillett’s Crim. Law, §741.

The court refused to give an instruction, prepared by appellant, that if the prosecuting witness, at the time of appellant’s alleged promise to…