State v. Mulholland
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Clinton District Court. — Hon. P. B Wolke, J udge. Dependant was convicted of the crime of seduction, and appeals from a judgment imposing á term of imprisonment in the penitentiary.-
1Opinion of the CourtWaterman, J.
Certain general objections to testimoney received are first discussed. As they involve no fievf principles, we are content to dispose of them by saying that a careful examination convinces us they are without merit.
1 *1722 *171II. It is thought the evidence is insufficient to establish the crime charged, in that"-the prosecuting witness i» not corroborated, and it does not show that defendant accomplished his purpose by “artifice, false promise, deception or flattery.” That some man had illicit intercourse with Frances Shockley, the prosecutrix, is made certain by the fact that she gave birth *172to a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ande v. StateSupreme Court of Iowa · 1857
- State v. CurranSupreme Court of Iowa · 1879
- State v. McClinticSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
- State v. WellsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878
- State v. KnutsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Fletcher v. KetchamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
- State v. HectorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922
- State v. . MoodySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- State v. MoodySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.