State Ex Rel. Cain v. Skeen , 137 W. Va. 806 ( 1953 )

Lovins, Judge,

concurring:

I concur in the discharge of the relator, but I do not agree that the following words should be in the first point of the syllabus: “* * * that the prosecutrix was of previous chase character * *

We do not have such question before us on the record. Though the first syllabus point is quoted from State v. Ray, that part of the quoted syllabus point relating to the chaste character of the prosecutrix could and should have been deleted. The chaste character of the prosecutrix was duly alleged in the indictment here considered and hence that question is not before us in this proceeding. The only question before us is the failure of the state to allege that the relator was over the age of sixteen years. I think that a syllabus of an opinion should not be burdened with statements which are not a point of decision; hence this criticism.