It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
The evidence of both the Commonwealth and of the appellant showed that in the summer of 1923, the Commonwealth's witnesses fixing the date, though not with positive assurance, as June 30th, and the appellant's witnesses fixing it, with more certainty, as May 26th, the prosecutrix, Ida Marie Bennett, who had known and been going with the appellant for a long time prior thereto, with a girl companion met, on a public road near her father's house, the appellant and a male companion. The reason for thus meeting was because the family of the prosecutrix objected to her keeping company with appellant. The two girls and the two boys then rode in appellant's Ford down to Beaver Dam, Ohio county, where the girl friend of the prosecutrix and the male companion of the appellant [*4] alighted and went into a picture show. It was then about eight o'clock in the evening. The prosecutrix and the appellant then drove out the Beaver Dam and Cromwell road some three or four miles and turned off into a by-road, where they remained until after the picture show had let out, a period of some two hours. On their return to Beaver Dam they found the couple which had gone to the picture show waiting for [***3] them, and the quartet then returned homewards. The girls alighted from appellant's machine before they reached the home of the prosecutrix, and finished their journey without their escorts in another machine. The above facts appear without dispute. The prosecutrix, however, further testified that while she and appellant were parked on the by-road as above set out, the act of intercourse complained of took place. The appellant denied this, and stated that at no time did he ever mistreat the prosecutrix, that at no time was he courting her, and that he only regarded her as one would a sister.Render v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W. 914