To constitute this offense the consent of the female to submit to carnal intercourse must be upon the sole consideration of the promise of marriage or other inducement;97 but it is not material how long after the promise of marriage before the carnal connection occurs if the promise was relied upon by the female.98

93 State vs. Pearsall, 43 Iowa, 630.

94 State vs. Ferguson, 107 N. C, 841; State vs. Prinn, 98 Mo., 368.

95 Anderson vs. State, 104 Ala., 68;

See State vs. Cochran, 10 Wash., 562. 96 Putman vs. State, 29 Tex. App., 454; State vs. Fitzgerald, 63 Iowa, 268; State vs. Reeves, 97 Mo., 668.

97 State vs. Carr, 60 Iowa, 453;

State vs. Sharp, 132 Mo., 165; People vs. Crusick, 93 Cal., 74; Barnes vs. State, 37 Tex. Cr., 320; Mills vs. Com., 93 Va., 815; State vs. Sibley, 132 Mo., 102.

98 Armstrong vs. People, 70 N. C, 38.

Thus, if the female submitted to the embraces of the accused relying upon his promise to marry her when they became old enough, that is sufficient;99 or if the promise be a conditional one, that is, if the female should become pregnant, the accused would marry her, has been held sufficient,100 and the promise need not be repeated at the time of the carnal connection.101 Whether the promise of marriage was made in good faith or not is not material.102 But if the female knew that the one making the promise of marriage was married at the time of the act of carnal intercourse, there can be no offense.103