Lemuel B. Schofield, Thomas D. McBride, Philadelphia, Fred I. Noch, Reading, for appellant.
Carl A. Niehoff, Dist. Atty., Mauch Chunk, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.
[ 170 Pa. Super. Page 98]
Defendant appeals from convictions of consensual rape and contributing to the delinquency of a minor child. The jury's verdict established the following facts:
The defendant, about forty years of age, conducted an undertaking establishment in the borough of Weissport, Carbon County. He was successful and had a good income. Married and with one daughter, he and his family lived in the same building where he conducted his business.
Jean Fairchild was born September 13, 1934. Wink became interested in her, and while she was under sixteen engaged her as a baby sitter in his home. He was very kind to her, paid her liberally, bought clothes
[ 170 Pa. Super. Page 99]
for her, and permitted her to have various articles of wearing apparel charged to him. He prevented her getting regular employment with others by telling them false stories about her. On one occasion she left home to take an out of town job, and he induced officers to bring her back to Weissport. The stories which he told about her to the officers and prospective employers were undoubtedly not true, because the record discloses two letters*fn1 from Wink to the girl's parents, declaring his affection for her, and extolling her good character and truthfulness. He also prepared a letter*fn2 addressed to the probation officer of Carbon County, which he induced this girl to sign (the context of which shows that it was not composed by her). The tenor of it was that her mother did not treat her right, that the Winks were her firm friends, that she wanted to live with them, and that it was a fine opportunity for her. Thus he succeeded in making her dependent on him. At one stage of the defendant's relations with this girl he offered her father $1,700 if he and his wife would consent to the child being adopted by the Winks. In that way she would become a permanent member of the family and directly under his control.
Without any doubt the evidence discloses that the defendant was an aggressive egoist, possessed of a great amount of cunning, craftiness, and stealth, which he utilized to have his way with this child.*fn3 The record
[ 170 Pa. Super. Page 100]
is replete with evidence that the defendant was not only jealous of her, but that he would brook no interference with his plans. In addition to his intractability he was much overweight and suffered from hypertension.
On June 30, 1950, and at various times thereafter into the month of September, the defendant had intercourse with his child. The testimony offered against him was wholly uncontradicted, and scarcely anyone could fail to believe that the defendant committed the felony charged.
For more than four hours the victim was put through a rigorous cross-examination covering 143 printed pages of the record. The purpose of the cross-examination was to show (a) that she was a trollop; (b) that she was a prevaricator; and (c) that the defendant was a very sick man. In numerous instances she was challenged concerning alleged false statements made to others. These she denied, and the defendant called no witnesses to contradict her.*fn4 He did not testify. It was claimed that the proximity of Mrs. Wink's bedroom to that of the girl made it impossible that defendant's ...