Appended to the record is a purported plea in bar based upon the marriage of the defendant and the prosecutrix alleged to have been solemnized in South Carolina since the trial; but the defendant, *546withdrawing this plea and relying upon a failure of proof, insists that bis motion to dismiss tbe action at tbe conclusion of tbe evidence should have been granted.
To convict tbe defendant of seduction it was incumbent upon tbe State to satisfy tbe jury beyond a reasonable doubt of every element essential to tbe offense. Tbe three elements are (1) tbe innocence and virtue of tbe prosecutrix, (2) tbe promise of marriage, and (3) tbe carnal intercourse induced by such promise. To each of these tbe prosecutrix testified; but tbe statute provides that the unsupported testimony of tbe woman shall not be sufficient to convict. This proviso has been construed to mean that tbe prosecutrix must be supported by independent facts and circumstances as to each element of tbe offense. S. v. Ferguson, 107 N. C., 841; S. v. Doss, 188 N. C., 214.
Tbe testimony of tbe girl’s father and stepmother constitutes supporting evidence of tbe defendant’s promise of marriage, but this is not enough. Whether Mrs. Hensley’s statement that “be (tbe defendant) was after her (tbe prosecutrix) all the time” can reasonably be construed as supporting evidence of carnal intercourse we need not decide (S. v. Ferguson, supra, p. 851), for if the question be resolved in favor of tbe prosecutrix there is’yet a distinct lack of evidence supporting tbe contention that tbe prosecutrix was an innocent and virtuous woman. As to this element of tbe crime, evidence of her good character would have been sufficient, but none was introduced. S. v. Doss, supra; S. v. Moody, 172 N. C., 967.
Since tbe evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction, tbe defendant’s motion should have been granted and tbe action dismissed. Let this be certified.
Reversed.