Pough v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Indictment for seduction; from Spalding superior court — ■ Judge Eeagan. February 7, 1910.
1Opinion of the CourtEussell, J.
The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff in error is that the verdict of guilty is contrary to evidence and to law, because there was no evidence of any persuasion by reason of which the female was induced to yield to the lustful embraces of the seducer. Pie contends that this case is controlled by the rulings in Disharoon v. State, 95 Ga. 351, Cherry v. State, 112 Ga. 871, and O'Neill v. State, 85 Ga. 383, in each of which cases it was held that if a single woman allowed an unmarried man to have intercourse with her solely because of a promise by him to marry her, it would be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- O'Neill v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1890
- Disharoon v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Cherry v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
3Cited by6 opinions
- Adams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Boyett v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
- Martin v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
- Youmans v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
- Maness v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.