KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, BUTLER LLOYD AND FRANCIS, JJ., NIGERIA. In this case the appellant was charged at the Criminal Sessions at Freetown with the following’ offences:- “First count: “Statement of offence: -Carnal knowledge of a girl under “thirteen, contrary to section 6 of the Children’s Ordinance, 1926. “Particulars of offence: Jonathan Cole on the 28th day of “February, 1942, at Freetown in the Colony of Sierra Leone had “carnal knowledge of Degbeh a girl under the age of thirteen. Second count: “Statement of offence: -Indecent assault contrary to section 52 of “the Offences against the Person Act, 1861. “Jonathan Cole on the 28th day of February, 1942, at Freetown in “the Colony of Sierra Leone, indecently assaulted Degbeh, a girl under “twelve years of age.” He was tried before Graham Paul, C.J., sitting with a jury, convicted upon the first count and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment with hard labour. Against that conviction he has appealed to this Court upon the following two grounds:-
“1. That there was no evidence whatever of corroboration on “which the appellant could have been convicted.
“2. That the finding of the jury are against the weight of “evidence.” As to the first ground, the fact that some man had had carnal knowledge of the girl Degbeh was amply corroborated by the evidence of the doctor who examined her, and the evidence of Degbeh that that man was the accused was corroborated by the evidence of another girl named Jawan. Although the evidence of the two girls conflicts in important details, the evidence of Jawan corroborates Degbeh’s in the main outline of her story of their visit to the appellant’s yard on the day in question, and is sufficient to connect the appellant with the crime. This ground fails.
The second ground would have been more properly worded “That the finding of the jury is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence” . As to this, although, as has already been mentioned, there were serious discrepancies in the evidence of the two principal witnesses for the prosecution, Degbeh and Jawan, there was ample evidence upon which the jury could come to the conclusion which they did, and the conflict of evidence was not such as to preclude them from believing the evidence of the girl Degbeh that it was the appellant who had had connection with her.
This ground also fails.
The appeal is dismissed.