State v. Wenz
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Good-hue county, McCluer, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after conviction on an indictment for seduction under promise of marriage.
1Opinion of the CourtGiletllan, C. J.
Indictment for seduction. The indictment, charged that the woman “was then and there [i. e., at the time and place of the seduction charged] an unmarried female of previous-chaste character.” Objection is taken to this as not stating with sufficient definiteness that she was chaste at the particular time.. But the clause quoted means that she was at that time, and previous-to that time, of chaste character.
The assignments of error point out several rulings of the court in-admitting or excluding evidence, or in its charge; but, as there must-be a new trial, we will consider only two of them,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. BrinkhausSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- State v. SnureSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
3Cited by15 opinions
- Knight v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Continental Insurance v. VanlueIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
- State v. MorrowOregon Supreme Court · 1937
- Skaggs v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 1922
- State v. SaxSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.