This is an indictment against three negroes for cape upon a white woman, a widow, who, with her little daughter, was living in a house without male protectors. The assailants broke open the door and committed the crime with svery conceivable circumstance of violence and -brutality. The revolting details are narrated with a simplicity and an evident truthfulness thaR make the blood run cold. The only question was as to the identity of the prisoners. The jury, *689after bearing tbe evidence and tbe defense of able counsel, said for tbeir verdict tbat tbey bad a reasonable doubt as- to the identity of one1 of tbe prisoners, and acquitted him, but that tbey bad none as to tbe other two1.
There was exception to evidence -of previous- statements made by the prosecutrix in corroboration of her evidence on tbe stand, also to- evidence which tbe Judge, after admitting over tbe prisoners’ objection, subsequently withdrew and told the jury not to- consider. Both these points have been so often passed upon by the Court tbat no citation of authority is- necessary. State v. Apple, 121 N. C., 584; State v. Coats, at this term; State v. Collins, 93 N. C., 564, and cases there cited.
Tbe confessions in jail were competent, tbe testimony being that there were neither threats nor inducements. State v. Bishop, 98 N. C., 773.
The special prayers for instructions by the prisoners (which were principally as to the defense of an alibi) were given, except the prayer that t-he-re was not sufficient evidence to go to- the jury, which was properly refused, and the prayer tbat when circumstantial evidence is relied on “every link in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” In lieu of this last, the Court instructed the jury; “In this case, the State relies upon both direct and circumstantial evidence^ and before the State can rely upon circumstantial evidence it is necessary for the State tó establish every circumstantial fact upon which it relies, beyond a reasonable doubt.” In this the Court followed exactly the rule-laid down in State v. Crane, 110 N. C., 536, which has since been more fully stated in State v. Shines, 125 N. C., 730.
Here the prosecutrix testified as to the identity of the two-who were convicted. There- was circumstantial evidence to corroborate her — such as scratches on the face of one of them the next day after the crime, which were not there the *690■day before, tbe identification of bis bat and glove, and other corroborating circumstances.
After a full examination of tbe record we find no error of law committed by tbe Judge, and tbe facts were submitted to the jury with proper and just instructions.
No Error.