source: Caselaw Access Project

author: BROWN, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    ELISHA B. BARNES et al., Appellants, v. MISSOURI VALLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al.
    In Banc,
    April 2, 1914.
    1. DRAINAGE DISTRICT: Organization: Collateral Attack. The legality of the organization of a drainage district, being a municipal corporation, cannot be collaterally attacked, nor even inquired into at the suit of an individual.
    2. -: Inaccuracies in Survey: Cured by Resurvey, etc. Insufficiency or inaccuracy of the first survey of a proposed ditch, and invalidity of a judgment entered by the county court ordering the ditch constructed and attempting to condemn the right of way for the ditch, may be cured by a proper judgment subsequently rendered and a resurvey in pursuance thereto.
    3. -: Notice: Sufficiency: To Dead Man. A notice of the organization of a drainage district directed to the persons whose names are returned by the viewers and generally to all other persons owning lands to be affected by the construction of the proposed ditch, in the language of the statute, when properly published, is due process of law and gives the court jurisdiction over the owners of all land in the district, though one of the names returned by the viewers was that of a dead man. Especially is such notice sufficient where the lands alleged to belong to said deceased person were divested out of him in his lifetime and vested in other persons.
    4. -: Construction of Ditch: Break in Survey: Injunction». A break or lack of continuity in the survey of the land condemned for a drainage district, whereby a strip of land twenty feet wide on the boundary of the right of way and narrowing to a point at the center of the right of way, and the fact that at another point, for a distance of 200 feet, the right of way is 150 feet wide, instead of 100 feet, as claimed by the contractor in his answer, are not defects of such a serious character as to justify an injunction restraining the construction of the ditch, since if the final report of the commissioners and engineer appointed to survey and locate the right of way is correct the judgment entered by the county court can be amended nunc pro tune, and the right of injunction is a matter of grace rather than of right, and if there is a fragment of land which has not been condemned over which defendants are about to construct the ditch the owner is entitled under the statute to maintain a suit for damages therefor after the ditch has been constructed.

      5. -: Insolvency: Additional Lands and Levy: Injunction. A drainage district may sue and be sued, and express power is conferred upon the county court to levy taxes to pay tbe expenses of condemning or purchasing such additional lands as the district may need for a right of way for its ditches, and therefore the district cannot be considered insolvent.
    6. -: Additional Notice: Invalidity of First. By causing to be issued and published a new notice to landowners, the county court did not nullify a previous notice regular in all respects, nor were the landowners released by the additional notice which need not have been given, nor did the county court lose its jurisdiction over those who were served with the first notice.
    7. -: Construction of Ditch: Injunction: Injury to Lands: Appeal. In the trial of an injunction suit to restrain the contractor from constructing a drainage ditch it is not proper to permit the plaintiffs to prove that their lands will be injured by the construction of the proposed ditch. The statutes have confided the power to pass upon such a question to the county court, and while no appeal from its decision has been provided, the Legislature alone can provide for appeals.
    8. -: Notice: Delay In Publication. A delay of two months-after the finding of the final report of the viewers and engineer in publishing the notice to landowners of the ditch to be constructed and the lands to be affected, did not render such notice invalid, in the absence of any showing of a change of ownership in the lands between the time the report was filed and the publication was made. The delay did not deprive the county court of jurisdiction. The publication of the report in such cases is very similar to an order of publication to a. non-resident, upon an affidavit, under the general practice act; and, besides, Sec. 2119, R. S. 1909, declaring that a “judgment shall not be impaired or in any way affected by reason of any default or negligence of any clerk or officer of the court, by which neither party shall have been prejudiced,” is to be applied in an injunction suit to restrain thé construction of the drainage district, which in effect is a collateral attack upon the judgment of the county court.
    9. -: -: Publication: Affidavit Sworn to Before Publication. The fact that the affidavit of publication of the notice was sworn to before the notice was published will not authorize a judgment to enjoin the construction of the drainage ditch, where the county court made a specific finding that due and legal notice had been given to all persons owning land in the drainage district except those who had voluntarily entered their appearance.

      Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge.
    Affirmed.

      James H. Hull, James W. Boyd and Perry A: Brubaker for appellants.
    The decree and judgment rendered hy the circuit court in this case, dissolving the temporary writ of injunction and .finding in favor of the respondents is erroneous, not sustained By^the law or the facts in the case, and should be reversed. (1) The order made by the county court on December 11, 1911, was and is without authority of law, and said court had no jurisdictional right to make said order, (a) On November 2, 1908', Silas Berry and others filed what they claim to be a petition asking for the formation of a drainage district and the digging of a ditch. Thereafter some proceedings were had in the county court and some notices, not legal, were given, and the county court, under said petition and notices, did on August 2, 1909, make and enter what purported to he a final order and judgment establishing a district and ordering a ditch to be dug. (b) Thereafter, and on the 30th day of September, 1900, William T. Hutson and others brought a suit to obtain a writ of injunction. A writ of temporary injunction was issued on October 5,1909. This case was fully heard in the circuit court of Jackson county, and every feature of the drainage proceeding was considered, and said circuit court, after a full hearing, held and decided that the county court on August 2, 1900', had no jurisdiction; and the order made then was held to be null and void. It was held null and void on the ground that the county court had no jurisdiction to makemt. All anterior matters and proceedings of the county court were adjudicated by that decision. Donnell v. "Wright, 147 Mo. 646, 199 Mo. 308; Emmert v. Aldridge, 231 Mo. 130; Cantwell v. Johnson, 236 Mo. 608. (c) Up to that time from August 2, 1909', no order was made in the county court of Platté county. The said county court could not proceed on February 6, 1911, without a new petition. It had no right to reverse or ignore the judgment of the .circuit court of Jackson county, (d) Even if the' county court had the right to set aside the final decree of the circuit court, still it had no right to make the order of December 11, 1911, for the reason that the pretended notice issued on November 6, 1911, was not in accordance with the statute and was not effective, and was null and void. Said notice as respondents claim it to have been made and published, •only purports on its face to give notice to such persons as were returned by the viewers and engineer In their report. Sec. 5587, R. S. 19091. (e) The •county court had no right to make the order of November 6, 1911, setting the time there for the hearing of ■said matter, because if any person could make an •order at that time that person was the clerk of the ■county court, and he never made any order fixing the time of hearing or of publication. Sec. 5587, R. S. 1909. 'The pretended publication gave notice to a time during the same term of court when it was issued. The ■statute says that the hearing of the same shall be set for some day of the next regular term of the county • court. Sec. 5587, R. S. 19091. (f) The said pretended •notice, given without authority of law, and without .any order made on the part of the county clerk, does not describe the lands contained in said alleged district. It does not contain a tabulated description of .said lands. The statute says there must be a definite • description of the lands. Sec. 5587, R. S. 1909. (g) The part of the said notice directed to D. W. Hutson, ■who was dead four years before Silas Berry and others .filed their petition, and owned an undivided interest in many tracts of land at the time of his deáth was insufficient to .give notice to him if said tracts had been properly described. (2) The county court exhausted all of its power when it undertook to make a final order on August 2, 1909. The viewers had done all they could do under their appointment. The engineer had exhausted his authority. All they had done up to August 2, 1909, was void under the decision by the circuit court. (3) While it is not necessary to show that the judgment and decree of the circuit court of Jackson county was correct, still we call the court’s attention to the fact that the original petition of Silas Berry, filed in the county court in November, 1908, does not state any facts authorizing the county court to take the lands of the appellants herein for drainage purposes, and to turn the waters of Sugar creek on and across them by a ditch or otherwise. That petition proceeds upon the basis that, as alleged therein, it was necessary to cut down the bank of Sugar creek and turn the waters thereof on plaintiffs in order to protect the fields, lots, yards, gardens, pastures, crops and lands of the petitioners. Before the county court can acquire jurisdiction there must be a petition filed therein alleging that the contemplated ■drainage would be conducive to the public health, convenience or welfare, or where it would be of public utility or benefit, and the facts necessary to show that said ditch would be necessary for public health, convenience or welfare must be stated in the petition. No such facts are stated; and the circuit court of Jackson county was correct when it held that the county court had no jurisdiction in the matter of Silas Berry et al. . That petition does not state where the contemplated ditch should start or where it should end. It does not say whether it was desired to issue bonds or not. Secs. 5579-80, R. S. 1909. The rule is universal that the petition must set forth every jurisdictional fact. The petition filed by Silas Berry and others on November 2, 1908, fails of this in every particular. St. Louis v. Gleason, 89 Mo. 67; Hopkins v. Railroad, 79 Mo. 98; Jefferson County v. Cowan, 54 Mo. 234; School District v. Oeillien, 209 Mo. 464; Railroad v. Storey, 96 Mo. 620; Cory v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 288; Railroad v. Townsite Co., 103' Mo. 569'; Railroad v. Swan, 120 Mo. 30; Whitely v. Platte County, 73 Mo. 30; Zimmerman v. Snowden, 88 Mo. 218; Railroad v. Railroad, 94 Mo. 542. This petition contains no description of the ditch. It contains no description of the lands to be embraced in the proposed district. It gives no names of landowners other than the petitioners. It does not.give the width of the strip of land to be condemned. It does not give a true description of the beginning, route, or terminus of the ditch. It does not show that the petitioners possessed the statutory qualifications. Township v. Probate Judge, 53 Mich. 130'. The law is and has ever been in condemnation proceedings that the petition must set forth the specific purpose for which the exercise of eminent domain is sought, and that it is necessary to take the property condemned for the specific purposes stated in the petition. 14 Cyc/1031, note 43; lb., 1030, note 40; Patterson v. Behr, 161 Mo. 513; Mattias v. Drainage Com., 49 Mich. 465; Frost v. Leatherman, 55 Mich. 33; Whiteford Twp. v. County, 53 Mich. 133. "Where-ever property is sought to be taken for public use the petition should either give the names of the land owners or a description of the lands. Seifener v. St. Louis, 141 Mo. 586; Miller v. Graham, 17 Ohio St. 1; Railroad v. Railroad, 94 Mo. 542. (4) The pretended notices given by the county court before August 2, 1969, did not in any material respect comply with the statutory requirements, did not contain a tabulated description of said lands, did not give the name of the person owning certain particular lands as described, did not purport to notify any person or persons except those mentioned in the viewers’ report. It did not give notice to those who were or might have been ascertained to own said lands or a part thereof or any interest therein, as the statutes provide. In said pretended notice, given in April, 1909, the lands are not described. Said pretended notice does not mention the names of any persons who are supposed to own any part, parcel or tract of said lands. That notice was jurisdictional. State ex rel. v. Taylor, 224 Mo. 463; State ex rel. v. Wilson, 216 Mo. 215. Hence, we again say that the county court had exhausted its right if it had any under said original petition when, on August 2,1909, it made the final order. The suggestions are not necessary, but are made in order to show that judgment of the circuit court on July 201, 1910, was correct. (5) On February 6, 1911, the county court undertook to overrule the circuit court. No other order was ever made continuing the proceedings in the county court, or keeping the proceedings alive in the county court, or undertaking so to do before November 6,1911. Hence, even if the county court had the right to overrule the circuit court, still its proceedings thereafter are null and void. (6) While the appellants contend that the county court had no right or authority of law or jurisdiction to make the order of December 11, 1911, still on other grounds the appellants are entitled to have the temporary writ of injunction perpetrated, and not dissolved.' (a) Before a ditch 100 feet wide and 15' feet deep, necessitating, as the county court held and has been repeatedly stated in the proceedings, the space of ground 100 feet wide, such right-of-way must be legally condemned and the damages for the condemnation actually paid to the owners. No right-of-way across the lands of the plaintiffs has ever been legally or properly condemned, or appropriated for said purpose. (b) The evidence of D. W. Hutson’s death was conclusive, and not disputed. The notice given by the county court upon which the order of December 11, 1911, purports to be based does not notify any person except'those who were mentioned in the re’ ort. The law does not proceed against the dead, hut against the living. Adams v. Cossom, 228 Mo. 577; Case v. Cartwell, 191 Mo. 705; State ex rel. v. Riley, 219 Mo. 688; State v. Wallace, 209' Mo. 365.

      Norton B. Anderson, Ardey Gabbert, George W. Day, W. II. Richards and R. L. Spencer for respondents.
    (1) The county court of Platte county found as a prerequisite to its last judgment being rendered in this case that due and proper and legal notice had been given in the proceedings of Platte County Drainage District Number 1, which it.was passing upon. This finding of that court cannot be collaterally attacked or relitigated in this injunction proceeding. Tie and Timber Co. v. Pulliam, 237 Mo. 18. (2) The judgment of December 11,1911, rendered by the county court, cannot be successfully assailed either upon direct or collateral attack, because the notice of July 3, 1911, complied in every respect with the law. R. S. 1909, sec.-5587; State ex rel. v. Blair, 245’ Mo. 691. Any reference to the notice above referred to is conspicuously absent from the appellants’ abstract of the record. The whole argument of the appellants on the question of notice is based upon the alleged invalidity of other notices. (3) The judgment of the county court establishing said drainage district cannot he challenged in this action for want of a sufficient petition or any other preliminary step in or under the orders of said court. State ex rel. v. Blair, 245 Mo. 687. (4) The plaintiffs having refused to accept the damages awarded them in the condemnation proceedings, cannot in this action use the fact of nonpayment thereof to defeat the construction of the public ditch. Railroad v. Clark, 119 Mo. 357; Shively v. Lankford, 174 Mo. 552’; R. S. 1909, sec. 5594. (5) The decree in the injunction case tried in Jackson county nullified two orders only of the county court, and left said county court full power to take up and administer the affairs of the drainage district at the point to which they had proceeded when the invalid orders were made. Furness v. Brummitt, 95 N. E. (Ind.) 1114; State ex rel. v. Taylor, 224 Mo. 479; State ex rel. v. Wilson, 216 Mo. 282; State ex rel. v. County Court, 137 Mo. App. 708-9. These appellants, impleaded with some others, obtained the Powell decree of injunction. That decree in terms studiously avoided the invalidation of any order of the county court relative to this drainage district other than those specifically named. That void order was no order. By it no rights were divested and no rights were obtained. It did not change the proceedings before the county court but left all prior proceedings before the county court intact. The county court did not lose jurisdiction of this drainage matter, and it was acting lawfully when it again took up the proceedings at the point where they had ceased to be legal, as pointed out by the decree. (6) Granting that D1. W. Hutson was dead at the time of the proceedings in the county court, and that he died seized of lands affected by said proceedings, still his heirs, devisees, or any one claiming under him, were brought into court by the notice published July 3,1911, directed to “and all other persons who may own such land or any part thereof or any interest therein” affected by the proposed improvement. R. S. 1909, sec. 5587; State ex rel. v. Blair, 245 Mo. 691. As a matter of fact, D. W. Hutson’s interest in the land had been seized and sold under execution issued from the Federal Court of the Western District of Missouri, and his title thus sold and divested had become vested in the plaintiffs and appellants, and other persons named Hutson not parties to this action. It is perhaps worth noticing that D. W. Hutson was named as a plaintiff in this action, and that he remained as such until the exigencies ofthe case seemed to have induced his attorneys to eliminate him as a co-plaintiff. It is further worthy of note that the United States marshal’s deed divesting D. W. Hutson of his title was filed for record March 26, 1909, which was after the filing of the petition for the establishment of the drainage system in the county court, and on the same day but two minutes later the Hutsons filed their deed for record. (7) A drainage proceeding is a matter pending from the time of the filing of the petition, and all persons and parties are in court from the time of the giving of the first notice by publication of the filing of the preliminary report of the viewers, and the county court has jurisdiction and power to order any amendment or to correct any order made by it in the proceedings at any time it found an error had been committed; it was, in fact, the duty of the court so to do. State ex rel. v. "Wilson, 216 Mo. 282; State ex rel. v. Taylor, 224 Mo. 480. (8) The county court had found as a fact as a part of its judgment rendered on March 1, 1909, incorporating the drainage district that due and legal notice of the pendency of the proceedings therefor had been given, and that finding of that court is not open to examination or review in this collateral injunction proceeding. Tie & Timber Co. v. Pulliam, 237 Mo. 1. Upon the recital in the county court’s judgment incorporating the drainage district, that judgment of incorporation becomes final and conclusive. State ex rel. v: Wilson, 216 Mo. 277; State v. Dugan, 110 Mo. 128-; Lingo v. Burford, 112 Mo. 149. The finding of the county court cannot be reviewed- in any proceedings in any court. State ex rel. v. Wiethaupt, 150 Mo. App. 60. (9) By the act of the county court in its judgment rendered on March 1,1909, incorporating and creating the drainage district, a municipal public corporation was thereby created and incorporated. This entity was a municipal subdivision of the State of Missouri. Drainage Dis. v. Turney, 235 Mo. 90; State ex rel. v. Taylor, 224 Mo. 4N; Wilson v. Drainage Dis., 237 Mo. 39; Land & Stock Co. v. Miller, 170 Mo. 240; Wilson v. Drainage Dis., 237 Mo. 39. The validity of this incorporation can only be inquired into in a direct proceeding for that purpose in quo warranto. Hence these plaintiffs have filed the wrong kind of suit. State ex rel. v. Wilson, 216 Mo. 215; Black v. Early, 208 Mo. 281.
   BROWN, J.

Equity in the circuit court of Buchanan county to restrain defendants from constructing a.drainage ditch through lands claimed by plaintiffs. From a judgment dismissing plaintiff’s bill they appeal to this court.

Plaintiff’s petition does not so indicate, but it is disclosed by other parts of the record, that this litigation arose out of an order of the county court of Platte county organizing Drainage District No. 1 in said county, and in attempting to cause the construction of a ditch about five miles long, which ditch is intended to straighten the channel of Sugar creek and carry the waters thereof into the Missouri river. Sugar creek is described in the petition as a stream from four to six feet wide and one foot deep. It has a crooked channel and runs from northeast to southwest through a portion of Platte county, emptying into Little Sugar lake, situated about one mile from the Missouri river in said county.

The plaintiffs in their petition have diligently avoided all reference to the fact that the county court is seeking to construct a ditch to drain or otherwise improve lands situated in the above named drainage district. Said petition merely asserts, in a general way, that defendants fire threatening and about to enter upon designated lands of plaintiffs and unlawfully and maliciously cut down the banks of Sugar creek, dig up and destroy plaintiffs’ crops, fences, hedges, houses and barns, and turn the waters of said creek upon plaintiffs ’ lands, to their damage in the sum of many thousands of dollars.

Said petition further alleges the insolvency of all the defendants, and, in appropriate language, charges the absence of any adequate remedy at law to protect the property of plaintiffs.

Defendants, by their joint answer, assert that the Missouri Yalley Construction Company is under a contract with the county court of Platte county to construct a public drainage ditch along a right of way one hundred feet wide running across some of the lands claimed by plaintiffs.

Defendants further specifically plead the condemnation of said right of way for a drainage ditch by a judgment of the county court of Platte county entered on December 11, 1911, in a proceeding begun and prosecuted under article 4 of chapter 41, Revised Statutes 1909. The aforesaid judgment purporting to condemn the right of way for a drainage ditch is copied into defendants’ answer, and purports to recite the precise boundaries of the right of way alleged to have been condemned, and also asserts the jurisdiction of the county court to enter said judgment of condemnation.

Defendants deny any intention to enter upon or disturb any lands now owned by plaintiffs, and assert that plaintffs have heretofore instituted and maintained another suit which had for its purpose the prevention of the construction of the aforesaid drainage ditch, and pray that plaintiffs be enjoined from bringing any further actions, either at law or in equity, having for their purpose the prevention of or delay in digging said ditch.

The defendant Galen B. Anderson is a civil engineer, appointed by the county court of Platte county to assist in surveying the right of way for the aforesaid drainage district; and defendant J. W. Harrington is a clerk of the county court of Platte county. They each deny any intention of doing anything about or concerning the lands of plaintiffs, except such acts as they are required to perform in their respective capacities as officers of said county court.

The reply of plaintiffs is a general denial of all allegations in defendants ’ answer.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to strike out several parts of defendants’ said answer, which motion was overruled, and thereupon defendants filed a motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order issued by the circuit court of Platte county at the time this suit was instituted, on the following grounds: (1) No equity on the face of the petition; (2) a complete defense set up in defendants’ answer; (3) and want of jurisdiction on the part of the court to determine the matters in issue.

The plaintiffs filed a motion praying for judgment on the pleadings, which motion was overruled.

When the case was called for trial the plaintiffs insisted that the answer of defendants was in the nature of a confession and avoidance, and, therefore, the burden of proof should be cast upon them. The trial court seems to have adopted the plaintiffs’ suggestion in this .respect.

The evidence of defendants tended to prove that at the November term, 1908, of the county court of Püatte county one Silas Berry and nine other persons owning lands adjacent’ to Sugar creek in said county filed a petition praying that a ditch be constructed so as to straighten the channel of said creek and turn the waters thereof into the Missouri river,- and that the cost of constructing such ditch be taxed against the lands which would be benefited by said improvement. Said petition contains all the recitals required by section 55791, Revised Statutes 1909, except that it omits to recite whether the petitioners desire the issuance of bonds to raise funds to make the contemplated improvement. This omission does not seem to be important as there has been no attempt to issue bonds.

On Monday, March 1, 1909, the county court of Platte county heard the petition of said Silas Berry et al., as well as thirteen remonstrances or exceptions to said petition, and finding that the ditch prayed for was practicable and would be of great public utility in preserving the lands of petitioners and the public health, ordered that the ditch be constructed, and that the lands to be benefited thereby should constitute Drainage District No. 1 of Platte county, Missouri, which order described the lands to be included in said district.

Said order of Mlarch 1, 1909', recited the publication of a notice in a weekly newspaper published in Platte county of the contemplated improvement and intended incorporation of said drainage district, as required by section 5581, Revised Statutes 1909'.

On August 2, 1900, the county court approved the report of the commissioners appointed by it to view, survey and locate the precise boundaries and route of the proposed drainage district; and on said last named day Ordered and directed Galen B>. Anderson, its engineer, to let a contract for the construction of said proposed ditch.

On October 1, .1909, seven of the plaintiffs in the present injunction suit, with thirteen other landowners of Drainage District No. 1 of Platte county, instituted a suit in the circuit court of that county to restrain Galen B. Anderson, the engineer, the clerk and members of the county court from letting any contract to construct the proposed drainage ditch. The petition in said suit is very similar to the one filed in the present action. It does not admit that any drainage district has been organized, but alleges, generally, the want of legal authority or power on the part of the county court of Platte county and the engineer ’to let a contract for constructing the proposed ditch; averring irreparable injury, etc. In short, the petition in that action is a collateral attach upon the drainage proceeding' before recited without referring to them or praying the dissolution or disincorporation of the district. This last mentioned suit was tried in the circuit court of Jackson county on February 6, 1911, and the following final judgment entered therein in favor of the plaintiffs:

“That the judgment and orders made by the county court of Platte county, Missouri, on July 26, 1909, and August 2, 1909;, providing for advertising for bids for letting and making contracts and constructing and digging of public ditch across the lands of plaintiffs named in their petition herein are void, and that defendants have no authority under said orders and judgments of said county court to advertise for bids, or to let, make or enter into any contract for the construction of, or to dig said public ditch across said lands of plaintiffs.

“The court orders that the defendants, and all of them, be, and they are hereby restrained and enjoined from advertising for bids for and from letting, making or entering into any contract for the construction of, and digging of said public ditch, under said judgments, orders of said county court of Platte county, Missouri, made on July 26, 1909, and August 2, 1909; and defendants are enjoined and restrained from entering upon the lands of plaintiffs, or ordering, authorizing, directing or causing other parties so to do, for the purpose of construction of, or excavating or digging said public ditch under said orders and judgments of said county court, so made on the 26th day of July, and the 2nd day of August, A. D. 1909.”

The above judgment was introduced by defendants over the objections and exceptions of plaintiffs. Neither party has pleaded said judgment in this action.

No appeal or writ of error was prosecuted front the above recited judgment, but after the rendition thereof the county court of Platte county appointed an engineer and viewers (the same parties who had theretofore served in that capacity) to resurvey and correctly locate the boundaries of Drainage District No. 1 of Platte county, and to re-survey and locate the precise boundaries of the proposed drainage district, find make a report of the benefits which would accrue to the lands in said district by the construction of said ditch, as well as the damages which would be sustained by landowners through the condemnation and appropriation of a right of way for said ditch through their lands. Said report to also contain a statement of the estimated cost of the proposed ditch.

At the May term, 1911, of said county court the viewers and engineer filed their report as directed and required by the order of the county court.

There was also introduced in evidence, but not pleaded, some memoranda concerning a suit prosecuted in the United States court to prevent the construction of the ditch over which this controversy arose, but it appears that said last mentioned suit was dismissed by mutual consent of the parties thereto, so that it need not be considered in this action.

About two months after the filing of the last report of the viewers and engineer, to-wit,' on July 3, 1911, the county clerk of Platte county issued and published a notice to landowners fixing August 7, 1911, as the date for hearing exceptions to said report and the benefits assessed and damages awarded therein. Further details of this notice will receive attention in our opinion. Upon the publication of the last mentioned notice, the proceeding's to construct the proposed ditch were continued until November 6, 1911, when the county court, without quashing the notice issued on July 3,1911, or dismissing the cause as to any person then in court, caused a new notice to be issued to landowners returnable on December 11, 1911.

‘ On December 11, 1911, the county court of Platte county, after reciting that it had acquired jurisdiction over all the persons owning lands in Drainage District No. 1, rendered judgment approving and confirming the last report of the viewers and engineer condemning the right of way for the ditch, and directing the letting of a contract for its construction. It is under and pursuant to this last mentioned judgment that defendant Missouri Valley Construction Company is threatening to dig the ditch about which plaintiffs complain.

In the finding of fact by the honorable circuit court of Jackson county, where this cause was heard on a change of venue, it is recited that the notice issued on July 3,1911, to landowners, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the county court to render the judgment of December 11, 1911, and accordingly the plaintiffs’ bill was dismissed.

The plaintiffs’ motion for new trial assigns, in general terms, sundry errors of the trial court, all of which may be considered under the assignments that the judgment is for the wrong party, and that the trial court “disregarded and failed to consider either the law or the evidence in rendering the judgment.”

OPINION.

I. Quite a mass of the thousand pages of evidence introduced by plaintiffs was directed toward overturning or showing the invalidity of the order 0f the county court of Platte county organizing Drainage District No. 1 of .said county, where defendants threaten to construct the proposed ditch.

Said drainage district being a municipal corporation of this State, the legality of its organization cannot be collaterally assailed, nor even inquired into at tbe suit of an individual. This doctrine is -supported by tbe following cases: State ex rel. Coleman v. Blair, 245 Mo. 680; State v. Fuller, 96 Mo. 165; The Catholic Church v. Tobbein, 82 Mo. 418; Burnham v. Rogers, 167 Mo. 17; and School District No. 35 v. Hodgin, 180 Mo. 70, l. c. 78.

II. The plaintiffs strenuously objected to the introduction of the judgment entered by Judge Powell of the Jackson circuit court sustaining the first injunction suit brought by soihe of. the plaintiffs and others to restrain the county court and its officers from letting a contract to construct the proposed ditch. At the time of the trial plaintiffs did not think enough of that judgment to plead it as an estoppel to the defenses set up in the answer, yet in their briefs and argument ore terms plaintiffs lean heavily on the decree of Judge Powell to secure a reversal of this case, and even assert that Judge Powell’s decree dissolved the drainage district.

The most casual inspection of Judge Powell’s decree, copied in our statement, will demonstrate that it only purports to restrain the advertising for and the letting of a contract to construct the ditch. "Whether that judgment could be given an effect beyond the power of the court to grant in a suit instituted and maintained by individuals, we need not decide, because it did nothing beyond what it purported to do. It restrained the letting of a contract to construct the ditch, and while the particular reasons for granting that relief are not recited in the decree, it is most probable that the decree rests upon the insufficiency or inaccuracy of the first survey of the proposed ditch; or the invalidity of the judgment entered by the county court in 1909 ordering said ditch constructed and attempting to condemn the right of way therefor. All of said defects may be and we hold that they were, cured by a subsequent survey of tbe right of way and a decree of the county court entered on December 11, 1911, which decree is now pleaded by defendants as their authority for constructing the ditch.

III. We will now consider such errors as defendants think they have found in said drainage proceedings. First, it is contended that the c°unty court acquired no jurisdiction over the owners of a certain tract of land in the drainage district reported by the viewers as belonging to one D. W. Hutson, because said Hutson was dead long prior to the filing of the petition to organize the drainage district. Granting that a suit begun and prosecuted against a dead man is void as to him, yet under the facts hereinafter recited we think appellants’ contention is unsound. The defendants have introduced deeds establishing the fact that the title of D. W. Hutson in and to lands in the drainage district was divested out of him during his lifetime, and invested in other parties, some of them plaintiffs in this action. The notice issued to landowners on July 3, 1911, by the county clerk of Platte county was directed to some of the plaintiffs in this action and generally to all other persons owning lands to be affected by the proposed drainage ditch. That notice complied with section 5587, Revised Statutes 1909, and was sufficient to give the court jurisiction over each and every person owning. lands within the drainage district, and the appellants, who were then part owners of the D. W. Hutson lands, were accorded every opportunity required by law to appear in the county court and resist the judgment condemning the right of way for the proposed ditch. ■

In the case of State ex rel. Coleman v. Blair, recently decided by this court (245 Mo. 680), it was held not necessary in the notice to landowners of the' assessment of benefits and awarding of damages arising ont of tbe constrnotion of a proposed drainage ditch to designate every person appearing by the deed records to own lands within the district. The names to be inserted in the aforesaid notice are usually obtained by the viewers while inspecting and locating the right of way for the ditch, and such notice should, in addition to the names returned by the viewers, also designate generally all other persons whose lands will be affected by the proposed improvements. Such notice, when duly published, is due process of law. [State ex rel. Coleman v. Blair, 245 Mo. l. c. 696-7, and cases there cited.]

IY. A further contention of plaintiffs is that the last survey of the right of way of the proposed ditch is inaccurate, in that it does not describe eorrectly the 100-foot strip of land upon which defendants are threatening to enter and construct the ditch. At the trial the plaintiffs introduced a surveyor and civil engineer by the name of Steininger, who testified that he had gone over the survey of the right of way for the proposed ditch as copied into defendants’ answer, and that at one point in said survey there was a break or lack of continuity, whereby a strip of land twenty feet wide on the boundary of the right of way and narrowing to a point at the center of such right of way, was never surveyed or condemned; also that at another point, for a distance of 200 feet, the right of way was 150 feet wide, instead of only 100 feet as claimed by defendants. The plaintiffs’ .witness further stated that he did not consider this last defect to be serious, and that it was probably caused by the fact that the section of land where the ditch is to be constructed is longer than it was thought to be by the viewers appointed to condemn the right of way. When this evidence came in the defendants requested, and were granted, permission to amend their answer to conform to the proofs, and the answer was accordingly amended, but the amendment is not definitely set out in the record.

We do not consider the defects complained of in this paragraph to be of snch a serious nature as to justify an injunction against the construction of the ditch. If the final report of the commissioners and engineer appointed to survey and locate the right of way is correct the judgment entered by the' county court can be amended nunc pro tunc, and, at any event,, as the right of injunction is a matter of grace rather than of right, we are constrained to hold that the defects mentioned are not of such a grave character as to justify the reversal of the judgment. [Johnson v. United Railways Co., 227 Mo. 423, l. c. 450.]

If there be any fragment of the land over which' the defendants are about to construct the ditch whiclr has not been condemned, there would be nothing to prevent the owner of such fragment from maintaining an action against the drainage district for his damages after the ditch has been constructed. [Secs. 5598 and 5599, R. S. 1900.]

Under section 5583, Revised Statutes 1909, the drainage district may sue and be sued, and- it cannot, be considered as insolvent, as power is expressly conferred on the county court to levy taxes to pay the-expenses of condemning or purchasing such additional lands as the district may need for a right of way. [Sec. 5588, R. S. 1909, as amended by Laws of 1913, p. 274.]

V. Plaintiffs’ resourceful .counsel further contend that by causing to be issued a new notice to landowners on November 6,1911, the county court nullified the notice issued by its clerk on July 3rd of that year, but we find that contention cannot be sustained. If the landowners were brought into court through the July notice there is no reason for contending, that they were released by an additional notice which need not have been given. [Burnes v. Burnes, 61 Mo. App, 612.] We find nothing in the evidence indicating an intention on the part of the county court to release its jurisdiction over any landowner who was served by the notice issued in July and returnable in August, 1911. The continuance of the cause to furnish time to publish another unnecessary notice gave the appellants additional time to appear and contest the assessment of benefits and the awarding of damages by the viewers,' and the appellants cannot be heard to complain of a mere irregularity which did not prejudice them in any way'

The plaintiffs have not pointed out any defect in the notice to landowners issued on July 3, 1911, and we have not found any error therein which would impair the jurisdiction of the county court to render the judgment which it did enter on December 11, 1911, condemning the right-of-way for the proposed ditch. Warrants were issued by the county court and tendered to such of the appellants as could be found in Platte county for the damages which were awarded to them by the commissioners who-surveyed the right of way, and the refusal by plaintiffs to accept the warrants tendered to them is not a matter of which they have a right to complain.

VI. During the trial the plaintiffs offered to prove that their lands would be injured by the construction of the proposed ditch, but this evidence was excluded. We do not see how the trial court collld have ruled otherwise. The General Assembly has confided to the county court the power to pass upon such question, as well as the propriety or wisdom of organizing the drainage district, and while no appeal has been provided for from its decision declaring a district organized, if more appeals are needed the Legislature alone can grant that relief. [Millar v. Transit Co., 216 Mo. l. c. 103.] The appellants were given due notice and an ample opportunity to present their grievances to the county court, and if they have failed to do so the fault must rest upon their shoulders. A defendant cannot choose the forum where his contentions shall be litigated; he must use the forum which the General Assembly has provided, and into which he has been summoned.

Yll. It is also contended by plaintiffs that the publication to landowners issued on July 3-, 1911, is void, because not issued immediately upon ^ie the final report of the viewers and engineer. Said notice was in fact not issued until about two months after the report of the viewers was filed.

Publication or voluntary appearance are the only methods of obtaining jurisdiction of landowners in a proceeding to drain lands under article 4, of chapter 41, Revised Statutes 1900. The names included in the notice were the names of the persons designated in the report of the viewers as owning the several tracts of land in the drainage district. If the plaintiffs in this cause had purchased their lands after the report of the viewers was filed, and before the notice was published, they might be in a better position to complain of the delay in issuing'and publishing the notice, because a notice directed to former landowners might not be as likely to reach or command the attention of the present owners as if it were directed to such present owners by name as designated in the viewers’ report.

The notice now under consideration should have been, and was, directed by name to the persons owning lands in the drainage district as reported by the viewers and engineer. It was also directed generally to those having: lands which would be affected by the proposed ditch, and as it does not appear that any of the plaintiffs purchased their lands in the district after the report of the viewers and engineer was filed they were in no way prejudiced by the clerk’s failure to issue and publish the notice more promptly.

The filing of the report of the viewers occupies a very similar position in law to the filing of an affidavit alleging the nonresidency of a defendant in an action against such nonresident. In that class of cases it is a general rule in this State that where the order of publication is in fact issued upon a proper affidavit, and is published in accordance with the requirements of the statutes, a judgment based on such order of publication is not invalid because the order was not issued and published at the very time it was applied for. [Whinnery v. Missouri Lumber & Mining Co., 231 Mo. 262; Kane v. McCown, 55 Mo. 181; Johnson v. Gage, 57 Mo. 160.]

Section 2119', Revised Statutes 1909, ordains that “judgments shall not be . . . impaired, or in any way affected by reason of . . . any default or negligence of any clerk or officer of the court . . . by which neither party shall have been prejudiced.” This is the rule to be applied when judgments are assailed by appeal or writ of error, and there are stronger reasons why it should be applied when, as in this case, the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is subjected to collateral attack. The delay in issuing and publishing the notice did not constitute such error so as to deprive the county court of jurisdiction.

Yin. A further insistence of plaintiffs is that there is no competent evidence that the notice to landowners was ever published, there being a defect i-11 the jarat to the affidavit of the printer, whereby it was made to appear that such affidavit was sworn to before the notice was published. This insistence cannot be sustained for the reason that the county court made a specific finding that due and legal notice had been given to all persons owning lands within the drainage district except those who had voluntarily entered their appearance. That court was not restricted to the printer’s affidavit, but could receive oral evidence that the notice was published in a newspaper in the manner required by law. It is presumed to have heard such oral evidence when its judgment is assailed collaterally. [Robbins v. Boulware, 190 Mo. 33; Raley v. Guinn, 96 Mo. 263.]

IX. After a laborious inspection of a voluminous record we are convinced that the judgment of the circuit court was for the right party and should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Lamm, G. J., and Woodson, Graves, Faris and Walker, JJ., concur; Bond, J., concurs in the result.


author: GRAVES, J. WOODSON, J.

text:
    THE STATE v. OLLIE LONG, Appellant.
    In Banc,
    April 2, 1914.
    1. APPELLATE AND TRIAL PRACTICE: Setting Aside Verdict The setting aside of a verdict on the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence is the peculiar function of the trial judge; but appellate courts do not determine the weight of the evidence, and will not set aside a verdict because it seems against the preponderance of the evidence, but it will consider the evidence to the extent of ascertaining whether or not there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict, and if there is not it will set the verdict aside.
    2. SEDUCTION: Promise of Marriage: Corroboration: Circumstances. In a trial of a defendant for seduction under promise of marriage the evidence of the woman as to such promise must be corroborated, and the corroboration may be by circumstances, but the proof of such circumstances must come from witnesses other than the woman.

      3. --: -: -: By a Discredited Witness. Testimony by prosecutrix’s father that, three or four weeks after what she testifies was a promise of marriage, he accused defendant of having seduced his daughter, that he at first denied it, but afterwards stated that he did promise to marry her and would keep his promise, is testimony corroborative of her evidence of the promise, and having been believed by the jury and their verdict approved by the trial judge it prevents the Supreme Court from setting aside the verdict on the assignment that there was no corroboration of prosecutrix’s evidence of the promise, although the reputation of such father for truth and veracity was demolished by his neighbors, and defendant denied the admission and his denial was corroborated by another witness who heard the conversation between him and the father.

      4. SEDUCTION: Prior Pregnancy: Physician: Waiver of Statutory Privilege. The State, on the theory that to disprove pregnancy of prosecutrix in November and December of 1908 tended to prove virtue and chastity on August 22, 1909, the time of the alleged seduction, with the consent of prosecutrix showed a given physicial condition, namely, “womb trouble,”’ by her (the patient), her mother and one of the physicians who treated her in December. She and her mother also testified that the other two physicians who treated her in November pronounced the ailment “womb trouble” and that the third physician treated her for the same trouble. Held, that,' if there existed a statutory privilege in favor of the State or in favor of the prosecutrix to close the mouth of the two physicians who treated her in November, it was waived by her testimony and by the State’s calling forth with her consent the testimony of the physician who treated her in December, and having been once waived it continued waived throughout the trial, and the court erred in refusing to permit the defendant to show by the other two physicians that what the State’s witnesses pronounced “womb trouble” was in fact pregnancy. If several physicians treat a patient for the same trouble, and the veil of secrecy is raised as to one of them, by the patient or with her consent, it is waived as to all, whether they treated her ■ at the same time or a month or so apart.
    5. -: -: -: -: Material: Rebuttal: Estoppel. And whether or not such testimony was material, it was prejudicial to defendant, and having been called forth by the State for the purpose of showing that the prosecutrix was a virtuous woman at the time she testifies she was seduced by defendant, he ought to be permitted to rebut it by showing she was pregnant eight or nine months prior thereto. If evidence is harmful and prejudicial, even if not material, it can be rebutted, and tbe party introducing it is estopped from objecting to rebuttal testimony.
    ■6. -: -: -: -: Contradictory of Prosecutrix. • Where the State by its conduct raises the veil of secrecy from one physician who treated her and thereby raises the veil from two others who treated her about the same time for the same ailment, and prosecutrix testifies that she had never known any man prior to the time of the alleged seduction, it is error to refuse to permit the two physicians to testify for defendant that her ailment was pregnancy.
    Appeal from Nodaway Circuit Court.— Hon. Frcmcis H. Trimble, Judge.
    Reversed and remanded.

      John W. Stokes and Cook, Cummins & Dawson for appellant.
    (1) There was not sufficient corroboration of the testimony of Carrie Miles, as to the promise of marriage. R. S. 1909, sec. 5235; State v. Heed, 57 Mo. 254; State v. Miller, 44 Mo. App. 159. (2) The evidence of Drs. Miller and Davis should have been admitted. These doctors were not permitted to testify, and the offered evidence was rejected, on the ground that any information they might have was acquired under the confidential relation of physician and patient, and could not, therefore, because of the statute, be disclosed by the physician, (a) The statute preventing a physician from disclosing information acquired by him in his professional capacity, cannot be used by the State in the prosecution of one of its citizens, so as to conceal the truth, and thus secure the conviction of the defendant. 10 Ency of Evidence, 9'8; 28 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 83'; Kling v. Kansas City, 27 Mo. App. 240; Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 2285 ; 40 Cyc. 2352. (b) The privilege in this case has been waived. By calling one of two attending physicians, the privilege of the statute is waived as to the other. O’Brien v. Implement C'o., 141 Mo. App. 331; 40 Cyc. 2399 ; Smart v. .Kansas City, 208 Mo. 162; State v. Peterson, 6 Wyo. 419. The privilege of the statute was waived when Carrie Miles, the patient, voluntarily testified as to her relations with the physicians, their examination and treatment of her, and fully disclosed her condition as she says her physicians found it. Highfill v. Railroad, 93 Mo. App. 2191; Holloway v. Kansas City, 184 Mo. 43; Lane v. Boicourt, 128 Ind. 420; Webb v. Met. St. Ry., 89 Mo. 610'.

      John. T. Barker, Attorney-General, and Thomas J. Eiggs, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
    (1) This court, in an opinion in this same case, State v. Long, 238 Mo. 383', held that the testimony of the father of the prosecutrix to the effect that the defendant admitted the promise of marriage was .sufficient corroboration. In addition to the testimony of the father of the prosecutrix, John Miles, as to the admission by the defendant of the promise of marriage, there was the direct testimony of the witness, Harry Brumk, to the effect that the defendant had said he had an opportunity to marry, and when asked as to whom he was going to marry the defendant replied “Carrie Miles.” The State can rely on the further facts of the attentions paid the prosecutrix and the letters written to her by the defendant, which, in themselves are sufficient corroboration of the promise of marriage. State v. Wheeler, 108 Mo. 658; State v. Eisenhour, 132 Mo. 140; State v. Davis, 141 Mo. 522; State v. Sublett, 191 Mo. 163. (2) The appellant contends that Doctors Miller and Davis would have testified that the prosecutrix was pregnant on November 5, 1908, when the time of the alleged seduction was about the 22nd of August, 1909. There was some other testimony concerning1 the visit of Doctors Miller and Davis in November, 1908. It is contended by appellant that this testimony and the further fact that Dr. Gray and prosecutrix testified as to treatment given the prosecutrix at St. Joseph, a month later, amounted to a waiver of Sec. 6362, R. S. 1909. The appellant, on this contention of waiver, relies upon the case of Epstein v. Penn Ry. Co., 250 Mo. 1. In this contention the appellant has failed to notice a distinction between the case at bar and the Epstein case. In the Epstein case a Dr. Elston, together with the plaintiff, testified as to the mode of treatment given by Dr. Elston and as to the condition of the plaintiff. A Dr. Christie and a Dr. Phelps were present at the same time and place and the court rejected their testimony as to the same facts. In the case at bar it is proposed to have Doctors Miller and Davis testify to the treatment and condition of the prosecutrix at a different time and place than that testified to by Dr. Gray of St. Joseph, and of which a detailed account was given by. both the prosecutrix and Dr. Gray.
   GRAVES, J.

Defendant stands charged with the crime of seduction under promise to' marry, the information being based on section 4478, Revised Statutes 1909. The scene of the alleged crime is located in Atchison county by such information, and the case was first tried in that county and defendant convicted. [State v. Long, 238 Mo. 383.] The judgment of conviction was reversed and the cause remanded, for reasons fully stated by Blair, C., in the cause supra. When the case again reached the circuit court of Atchison county, Judge Ellison, the judge of that court, disqualified himself, and Judge Francis H. Trimble was called in to try the same. Application was made by defendant for a change of venue, and upon a hearing thereof, Judge Trimble sustained the same and sent the cause to Nodaway county, in which court a trial was had, and defendant again found guilty. By the verdict his punishment was fixed at six months’ imprisonment in the county jail, and a fine of five hundred dollars, and from a judgment upon that verdict the defendant has again appealed to this court. In Division No. 2, an opinion was handed down affirming such judgment, but a motion for a rehearing was filed by the defendant, which motion was sustained, and the cause transferred from that court to this court.

The pertinent facts in abbreviated form are about as follows:

At the date of the alleged offense, the prosecutrix, Carrie Margaret Miles, was practically nineteen years of age and lived on a farm with her parents in Atchison county. The defendant at the same date was about twenty-three years old and lived on a farm, with his parents, in Holt county, but only four miles distant from the farm of Miiles. The prosecutrix and the defendant had been acquainted in a casual way for some years prior to August 22,1909, the date fixed as the time of the seduction. From June to October, 1907, the defendant seemingly paid some attention to the prosecutrix, and during this period visited her upon several Sundays, taking her to church and other public gatherings. During this time the prosecutrix claims no ungentlemanly conduct upon the part of the defendant. She says, however, that twice he proposed marriage, and twice she rejected him. That she told him her folks said she was too young to marry, and that they agreed to quit company for awhile, but with a tacit understanding that his attentions would be renewed later. These things the defendant denies. In October, 1907, defendant’s attentions to prosecutrix ceased, and each went his or her own way for the months between that date and a short time before the date of the alleged offense. During these months, October, 1907, to August, 1909, nothing passed between the parties, except several unimportant post cards sent by the defendant. They met occasionally at public places and talked upon commonplace subjects. Prosecutrix during this time kept company with other young men and corresponded with them, — among them a Mr. Lee and also a young man who lived at their home. August 15', 1909, defendant, his two sisters and a young man named Miles, were at church and were invited by Carrie Miles to her home for dinner. The invitation was accepted, and later in the day (about five or six o’clock in the evening) they all went over to the defendant’s home. Carrie Miles was escorted over there by Mr. Lee, who had called up by phone and engaged her company whilst defendant and the others ■ mentioned were there. Young Lee took her home from Long’s place. Up to this point there was nothing wrong between these two parties. Miss Miles says that on the 15th of August defendant engaged her company for the next Sunday, August 22nd. Defendant says that she asked him over to take her to church, and he told her he didn’t know about it, but would write. The record shows he did write telling her he would be over to take her to church, and he went over according to the terms of the letter. He drove her to church, a distance of five miles,, without incident worthy of relation. After the services the two, in the buggy, started for her home. The church was.in Holt county; and the county line was much nearer her home than the church. She says that about the time they reached the county line between Atchison and Holt counties (her home being in Atchison) he rather fervently proposed marriage to her, and though not exactly at first, but she shortly consented.' Immediately following he proposed illicit intercourse, and with but little hesitation (speaking from the record) to this she consented. True it is, she says that he promised to marry her the next Wednesday, and urged that no harm could come of the intercourse.

According to the story of prosecutrix she prepared to go to town with him Wednesday to get married, but defendant, although, duly waited for, came not. The whole transaction of becoming engaged, and having intercourse covered a very short time. Counsel for defendant figure it out to be thirty seconds. The parents were not advised -of the proposed marriage on the Wednesday named. Nor did the prosecutrix take any steps to find out why defendant had not kept his word. She says that they had agreed to keep the marriage matter a secret until he could rent a certain farm in the neighborhood. She says that defendant came back the next Sunday August 29th, but this is denied by defendant, he says that he was not there again until September 5th. According to the prosecutrix he came to her home on Sunday, August 29th, and took her to church; that he explained his failure to keep the marriage date, by saying that he had not rented the farm as yet. She says that on the trip home from church the promise of marriage was again renewed, and intercourse followed the renewed promise, with a little more alacrity than upon the previous occasion. The next Wednesday was fixed for the marriage, but she again waited in vain for defendant. At no time were the parents advised of any promise to marry, until September 9th, when the mother (on a wash day) made discoveries to the effect that all was not well with the girl, and asked her to explain, and then she told of the alleged marriage engagement and the intercourse. Prosecutrix made no effort to find out why defendant had for a second time made default, but on September 12th, three days after her disclosure to her parents, she did write the following rather informal letter:

Fairfax, Mo., September 12, 1909.
Dear Friend: I will take tbe pleasure of writing to you tbis evening. How bave you been getting along these days. Olive wbat fine time did you bave at fairfax Thursday. We went up Friday, but thought it was dull. Olive, can you come and take me to Craig one day, wed. or thurs. . Papa is going for cattle and the boy’s in going to school and Harry is going to take his company. So that way, I wont have any way to go. Olive, let me know over the phone if you can come and take me. Let me know as soon as you get this.
I remain, as ever,
Carrie Miles.

No answer came to this letter. September 16-th, Miss Miles and her father and mother attended a re-nnion at Craig, and defendant and his sister were there. The father testified that he, in the town of Craig, accused the defendant of having seduced his daughter, and that the defendant at first denied it, but afterwards stated, that he did promise to marry her and would keep his promise. Defendant denied such an admission, and his denial was also corroborated by another witness, who says he heard the conversation between John Miles, the father, and the defendant. The reputation of Miles for truth and veracity was literally demolished by his neighbors, and no effort was made to patch up the torn garment of reputation after the defense was through with it.

With one exception this sufficiently outlines the case for a discussion of the points urged for reversal. Upon the matter left out at the present, we will detail the facts fully in connection with the point.

I. Speaking personally the merits of the State’s case does not impress me. A thorough reading of this voluminous record has left a “tang” some what averse to my judicial “taste,” if I may be pardoned for the „ , . -r, , • use of such expressions. But m cases of this kind the trial judge has the peculiar function of setting aside a verdict, when he is impressed with the idea that such verdict is against the weight of substantial evidence in the case. As has often been said by this court this function is one peculiarly belonging to the trial judge, and appellate courts do not usually interfere with this peculiar judicial discretion, lodged by the law, with trial judges. We will, however say whether or uot there is substantial evidence to sustain the verdict, but will not pass upon the weight of the evidence. In other words, this court will not disturb a verdict because against the apparent weight of the evidence, because the law has imposed the duty to grant new trials for that ground on the trial judges.

It is urged in this case that there is no sufficient corroboration of the prosecutrix’s story as to the promise to marry. If there is no corroboration, it is our duty to say so. Further, if the corroboration does not meet the requirements of the statute, it is our duty to say so. But on the other hand if there is corroborating evidence,'which if believed, meets the requirements of the statute, and this corroborating evidence is rebutted by a greater weight of evidence contra, then the peculiar functions of the trial court is called iuto play, and such court should assume the full measure-of responsibility. The statute (R. S. Í90-9, sec. 5235) reads:

“In trials for seduction under the promise of marriage, the evidence- of the woman as to such promise must be corroborated to the same extent required of the principal witness in perjury.”

The corroborating evidence required by this statute may be by circumstances, but the proof of these circumstances must come from witnesses, other than the woman. [State v. McCaskey, 104 Mo. l. c. 646-7.] In the McCaskey case it is said:

“The State stood on the uncorroborated evidence-of the prosecuting witness in this case. She testified defendant promised to marry her, and under and by virtue of that promise, seduced her. Section 1912, Revised Statutes 1879', provides that “in trials for seduction under promise of marriage, the evidence of the woman, as to such promise, must be corroborated to-the same extent required of the principal witness in perjury.’ It has been held by this court that ‘evidence of circumstances which usually accompany the marriage engagement will satisfy the statute as to-supporting evidence.’ [State v. Hill, 91 Mo. 423.]
“Here the prosecuting witness testified to the promise and also to ‘the circumstances attending the marriage engagement, ’ and the State argues that that satisfies the statute. It is the evidence of the woman as to-the promise of marriage that must be corroborated. There must be some evidence independent of the principal witness as to the promise of marriage. In this case there is an attempt to evade this plain statutory provision by the principal witness testifying first to the promise of marriage and then to ‘the circumstances’ that corroborate her. This is clearly not the law. She must be corroborated by some witness other than herself. [State v. Hill, supra; Ros. Crim. Ev. (6 Am. Ed.) 765; State v. Reeves, 97 Mo. 668; State v. Primm, 98 Mo. 368.] ”

Upon the question of corroborative proof, when the-case was here before, 238 Mo. 1. c. 393, the court correctly said:

“No circumstances indicative of an engagement were proved. It is true there is evidence that about two years prior to the time prosecutrix testifies her downfall was accomplished, defendant called on her several times, and prosecutrix testifies that these attentions culminated in October, 1907, in a proposal of marriage which she did not accept, and no further attentions seem to have been paid her by defendant until August, 1909. In the interim she attended church with other young men and corresponded with them. Defendant renewed his suit, according to prosecutrix, on August 22, 1909', and on the evening of that day the proposal of marriage was made and accepted and the betrayal almost immediately followed. This is prosecutrix’s version of the matter. Her mother had no-knowledge of any engagement of marriage until about September 13, 19091, when certain explanations demanded by her of prosecutrix elicited the accusation .against defendant.
“Defendant was seen in public with prosecutrix in 1900 as her escort but twice, once on August 22, and ■again either on August 29 or September 5'.
“Four or five postcards were offered by the State but were of such character that they are of little value for any purpose, and all were dated prior to August 22,1909, when the promise of marriage is said to have been made.
“These circumstances are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute (Sec. '5235, R. S. 1909) as to the corroboration of the prosecutrix as to the promise of marriage (State v. Hill, 91 Mo. l. c. 426; State v. Eisenhour, 132 Mo. l. c. 147; State v. Davis, 141 Mo. l. c. 525), and the instruction on this phase of the case should not have been so worded as to indicate to the jury that, without more, they might afford a basis for a finding that prosecutrix was sufficiently corroborated as to that promise. ’ ’

As to the matters and things above discussed the record now is about as it was then. There is no corroborative evidence except what is given by a witness Brunk, and the father, John Miles. John Miles testifies to an admission made by the defendant in the town ■of Craig on September 16th. But as indicated in the statement his reputation for truth and veracity is thoroughly “riddled” by his neighbors, and the State brought none to the rescue. Not only so, but defendant ■denies any such admission, and in this he is corroborated by a witness who heard the talk at Craig between John Miles and defendant.

The witness Brunk appears upon the scene for the first time in the second trial. He was living at the time in the State of Nebraska, but claims to have been back home on a visit. He says that he met defendant in Craig and had a conversation with him. The record had hest speak for him. It reads:

£<Q. Tell the jury what he said about his marrying Cariie Miles, if he said anything1'about it? A. I came down by the Racket at Craig and Ollie and I met there — I always chat with the boys that I meet — I said, ‘Ollie, you ain’t married yet, are you Ollie?’ He says, ‘No, but I have an opportunity to get married.’ I said, ‘Who to?’ He said, ‘Carrie Miles.’ ”

Upon cross-examination the witness firmly fixed this conversation in, the year 1908, at which time no one claims there was a promise of marriage. So that this evidence lends but little aid, if any, to the State’s case. It should be added here that the defendant testified that he had never seen the witness Brunk in his life until the day he testified. With the evidence of Brunk to one side, the only corroborative evidence is the testimony of John Miles that the defendant admitted to him the promise of marriage at Craig, Missouri, on September 16th. If Miles spoke the truth, the prosecutrix was corroborated.. If he did not, she was.not. The credibility of his testimony was with the jury and the trial court. If the trial court was convinced of the false testimony of this witness the verdict should have been promptly set aside. The matter of his credibility, therefore, reaches this court vouched for by the verdict of the jury and the action of the trial court on such verdict. We therefore say, as was in effect said when the case was here before, the credibility of this witness was with the jury and the trial court. With truth stamped upon the face of that testimony by the action of the jury and the trial court, we can not say there was not the corroborative evidence required by the statute. What we might have done, if trying the case nisi, is immaterial. The question here is, was there corroborative evidence of the promise, to marry, with the word “truth” written across the face of John Miles’s testimony by the trial jury and the trial court. "We say by the trial court as well as the jury, because, if that court was convinced of the falsity of John Miles’s testimony, it had but one plain duty in the premises. Under the facts, we feel constrained to rule this contention against the defendant.

II. We reach now a vital question in the case, and one which calls for a little fuller detail of the facts. Carrie Miles blossomed into womanhood when she was between twelve and thirteen years of age. From the beginning she was troubled at the menstrual periods. She had to have a physician at these times. ■ She often fainted away and had spells or fits at these times. By her folks her trouble was assigned to be “womb trouble.” ' Dr. Davis had been the family physician for several years. The prosecutrix and her mother testify that about November 5th plaintiff was suffering from this “womb trouble” and that Dr. Davis was called to treat her. ■ That her condition was such that Dr. Miller was sent for to hold a consultation with Dr. Davis. That the two doctors consulted over her situation and prescribed for her. They say the doctors said she was suffering from this old “womb trouble.” The' evidence then discloses that she continued to feel badly until the father and mother took her to St. Joseph on December 2nd following, when she was operated "upon, by one Dr. Gray. Dr. Gray had formerly lived at Craig and had been the family physician of the Miles family. When the case was reversed and remanded by this court and went back for a new trial (the trial now under review) the State for reasons best known to its officers took a new.turn in the case. Evidently there were whisperings that all had not been well with Carrie Miles, when Dr. Gray operated upon her December 3,1908. In this trial the State proved the good repute (previous to this trouble) of Carrie Miles by her general repntátion in the neighborhood. This general reputation for virtue and chastity was shown by the neighbors. But the State did not stop here. It put on Dr. Gray, who it was claimed treated her for this same “womb trouble” from which she was suffering when Drs. Davis and Miller treated her, and proved by him that she was not suffering from pregnancy at that time (December 3, 1908). Not only so, but that there was no evidence of her having ever been pregnant before that time. In this situation, the defendant put on the stand both Dr. Davis and Dr. Miller, and offered to prove by them that Carrie Miles was pregnant in November, 1908, at the time they treated her for what she and her parents called the “womb trouble.” Upon the objection of the State — -not Carrie Miles- — ■ the court excluded this proffered evidence. In this the defendant charges error. It is apparent from this record that all three doctors — Drs. Davis and Miller in No-, vember and Dr. Gray, December 2nd, following — were called upon to treat and did treat the same malady, whatever it, in fact, was. This not only appears from the testimony of the girl, but from the father and mother as well. It is also clear that the girl and the mother undertook to say not only for what she was being treated, but they aver that Drs. Davis and Miller so stated the nature of the girl’s trouble.1 Under this state of the record counsel for the defendant suggest several questions, and these we take next.

III. At the outset defendant says that the statutory privilege under which the testimony was excluded does not exist in this case. The position is that this being a State case, the State can not exclude from the jury any evidence which shows the truth of the case and thereby the innocence of the defendant. If the views we entertain of this case, and which we will explain later are correct, we will not follow counsel in their argument upon this question, but leave it to a case where such question is the real and only turning point. We think there are other points in this case which necessitate a reversal of the judgment, and if reversed for the reason we have in mind, the particular question here urged will not be a controlling one upon a further trial of the cause, if such further trial be had. With these remarks, we pass the question.

IV. We think the question of privilege, if there was such a question in the case, was waived by the State and the prosecutrix. We must not ]oge sight of the facts. The State was attempting to show the physical condition of the prosecutrix in November and December of the year 1908. The State, with the consent of the prosecutrix, opened the sick chamber, and showed a given physical condition, i. e. “womb trouble, ’ ’ not pregnancy. This the State did by the patient, her mother, and one of the three physicians, who treated her for that alleged trouble. The' State — not the patient — now seeks to close the mouth of the other two physicians. Can it be done? We think not. The State proceeds upon the theory that to disprove preg*nancy in the fall of 1908 tended to prove virtue and chastity in August, 1909'. By that theory it ought to be bound, a question, however, we discuss next. Getting back to the question of the waiver of the privilege. At common law there was no privilege as to communication between physician and patient. [40* Cyc. 2381,. and cases cited.] But this rule is changed by statute in this State. [R. S. 1909, sec. 6362.] Communications between patient and physician are privileged in Missouri. But that fact does not mean that there can be a waiver of the privilege, and if it is once waived, it remains waived until the determination of the case, it matters not how many trials may be required. [Elliott v. Kansas City, 198 Mo. 593.] Because the waiver,, if made, stood throughout the ease, we were admonished to make the pronouncement we did in the previous paragraph, i. e., that the question there propounded would not be a vital question upon a retrial of this case. The prosecutrix and the State waived the privilege as to Drs. D’avis and Miller when it was shown by the prosecutrix and her mother that these physicians treated her for the old malady, i. e., “womb trouble.” The girl says that she. took the medicine of Dr. Davis, and that the two' doctors consulted over her case. She goes further and puts in the mouth of the doctor the name of her malady. She and the mother, present at the time, had given to the world all the secrets (so far as they claim these were secrets) of that sick chamber. That she was taken to St. Joseph for treatment of the same alleged trouble by Dr. Gray in less than a month, is shown by the prosecutrix, her mother and Dr. Gray. It must not be overlooked that all three of these doctors were claimed to have treated the identical trouble, i. e. “womb trouble,” to use the vernacular of the girl, her mother and her father, rather than the technique of Dr. Gray. With three doctors treating the patient for the same alleged trouble, malady or injury, the State picks out one, evidently most favorable to it, and shows what the trouble was. Yes, it is described in the most minute details, and all to the benefit of the State. But when the defendant says “You have raised the veil of secrecy and published what you say are the facts about the girl’s trouble, I want to show by the other two doctors what the real facts are,” the State and the court say no. This was error.

In Smart v. Kansas City, 208 Mo. l. c. 207, it is said by Lamm, J., in which the writer concurred, that the time was ripe to take an advanced step in the construction of our statute of privilege, and upon the question of waiver of such statutory right. I do not believe that the doctrine we then announced was an advanced step in the law. I think the courts had long before taken the very step, being impelled thereto by plain legal principles. Lamm, J., thus said:

‘ ‘ I am, furthermore, of the opinion that when Miss 'Smart tendered to the jury the issue as to the condition of her knee both before and after the injury (which she did) and when she withdrew the veil of professional secrecy by introducing as a witness one ■out of a number of physicians who had examined her knee, and by his testimony made public the result of his investigation as to its condition, she waived her privilege of privacy and confidence as to any of her ■other physicians in relation to the same subject-matter. A litigant should not be allowed to pick and ■choose in binding and loosing — he may bind or he may loose. It he binds, well and good; but if he looses as to one of his physicians, the seal of secrecy is gone— the spell of its charm is broken as to. all. May one ■cry secrecy! secrecy! professional confidence! when there is no secrecy and no professional confidence? As well cry, P|eace, peace, when there is no peace. [Jeremiah 6:14, q. v.~\ To hold so leaves a travesty •on justice at the whimsical ' beck and call of a litigant. He may choose a serviceable and mellow one out of a number of physicians to fasten liability upon the defendant, and then, presto! •change! exclude the testimony of those not so mellow and serviceable, to whom he has voluntarily given the same information and the same means of getting at a conclusion on the matter already uncovered, by professional testimony to the jury. There is no reason in such condition of things, and where reason ends the law ends. The right to secrecy in confidential and professional matters may be likened unto salt. But what if the salt has lost its savor, wherewith may aught be salted? To my mind the time has come for us to take a step in advance and to construe the statute to mean that when a litigant breaks the seal of professional confidence and secrecy and waives it as to A.,, then by the same token it is broken and waived as to Bt, C. and D. who bore the same relation to him as did A.”

The very recent case of Epstein v. Pennsylvania Railway Co., 250 Mo. 1, is fully as broad, if not broader, than the views above expressed. In this case Judge Pajris reviews the case law upon the question of waiving the statutory privilege, and it will be noted that much of it antedates what was said in the concurring opinion in the Smart case, supra.

In the case at bar, the State, with the consent of the prosecutrix, was attempting to establish the physical condition of the prosecutrix in November and December of 1908, because such condition, it was thought, tended to enhance the interests of the State. For this purpose the State, with the consent of the prosecutrix, takes one of the three physicians who had treated her for th.e alleged physical ailment, whatever it might have been. In this the State is much like a plaintiff in a personal injury suit, when the plaintiff attempts to prove-the character of the injuries by one of the many physicians whom she may have had attending her. "We can see no difference in the rule which should be applied in these two instances. The question is, can the party give to the world the secrets of the sick room through her chosen physician, selected for that purpose, and yet claim the privilege as to all of the other physicians whom she has had treat the same injury or trouble. In the case at bar the real secret of the sick room was the malady or trouble from which the prosecutrix was suffering. This trouble she herself undertook to publish to the world — whether truthfully or not is another matter. Not only so, but she consented to one-of the attending physicians likewise publishing this' condition of hers. And if the several physicians treat for the same trouble (as is the case here) then'it can make no difference that their treatment was at different dates. The question of waiver was fully settled by this court long before the Smart case, supra; In Elliott v. Kansas City, 198 Mo. l. c. 607, it is said:

“Upon this proposition the expressions by the courts having the question in judgment before them is almost uniform that the purpose sought by the prohibition contained in the statute against disclosing professional information, is for the purpose of allowing greater freedom between physician and patient, and was enacted as a matter of public policy to confer upon persons seeking the service of a physician a personal privilege, and closing the door to the sick room and of preventing his publishing to the world their infirmities. That this personal privilege may be waived all the authorities agree. It is equally well settled, as was said in Fox v. Turnpike. Co., 59 N. Y. App. Div. l. c. 369, that ‘when a patient voluntarily opens the door of the consultation room and gives a view that may have been specially arranged for the purpose, it would not be in accordance with the spirit of the statute or the interest of truth to shut the door against a view to be described by the physician.’ In Morris v. Railroad, 148 N. Y. l. c. 92, 93, the proposition involved in this proceeding was in judgment before that court. The principle was announced in that case that a plaintiff could not sever her privilege, waiving it in part and retaining it in part. It was there expressly ruled that ‘when she-waived it, it ceased to exist, not partly but entirely . . . Having once consented to and acquiesced in the complete uncovering and making public what before was private and confidential, the seal of confidence is removed entirely and the waiver cannot be recalled . . . The information is open to the public and the patient is no longer privileged to forbid its repetition. A waiver once made is general and not special, and its effect cannot be properly limited to a particular purpose or a particular person . . . After the information has once been made public no further injury can he inflicted upon such rights and interests of the patient as the statute was intended to protect, by its repetition at another time or by another person.’
“In McKinney v. Railroad, 104 N. Y. 352, the reasons for the application of the doctrine of waiver of a personal privilege were very clearly announced. The court in discussing the proposition used this language: ‘It is claimed by the appellant that the ban of secrecy having once been removed by the patient, and the information having lawfully been made public, the right to object further thereto has not been conferred. There seems much reason in this claim. The patient cannot use this privilege both as a sword and a shield, to waive when it inures to her advantage, and wield when it does not. After its publication no further injury can be inflicted upon the rights and interests, which the statute was intended to protect, and there is no further reason for its enforcement. The nature of the information is of such a character that when once divulged in legal proceeding’s, it cannot be again hidden or concealed. It is then open to the consideration of the entire public, and the privilege of forbidding its repetition is not conferred by the statute. The consent having been once given and acted upon cannot be recalled, and the patient can never be restored to the condition which the statute, from motives of public policy, has sought to protect. The stringency with which the rule excluding privileged communications is applied by this court is illustrated in the recent case of Renihan v. Dennin, 103 N. Y. 573, but there is no principle of authority for holding, after a consent to publish such information has been properly given, and the evil, if any, consummated, that the privileged person can again raise the objection. The object of the statute having been voluntarily defeated by the party for whose benefit it was enacted, there can be no reason for its continued enforcement in such case. ’ ’ ’

Later in the same case it is further said:

“There is some conflict in the adjudications upon this proposition but the greater weight of authority is in harmony with the principle announced in the authorities heretofore cited. We shall not undertake to reconcile such conflict. In our opinion the principle applicable to this proposition, as announced in the New York case, is soimd, and the reasons assigned for the announcement of the doctrine are equally so. It is insisted by learned counsel for respondent that this principle is not applicable to the case at bar, for the reason that in the former trials the plaintiff did not introduce the physician, and therefore this rule is inapplicable. It is sufficient to say of that contention that the purpose of judicial investigation is and should be to ascertain the truth surrounding the transaction to be judicially determined, and ive are unable to make any distinction as to the application of the doctrine of ivaiver, where the patient herself opens the door to the sick room, and where she - consents and acquiesces in someone else opening such doors. In principle there is no difference.”

The italics are ours. To like effect in O’Brien v. Implement Mfg. Co., 141 Mo. App. l. c. 337, the Kansas City Court of Appeals, said:

“The question is raised as to the ruling of the court in excluding Dr. Hassig as a witness to prove the condition of the plaintiff’s injuries. Plaving introduced one of his physicians to prove the condition of his injuries the plaintiff waived the privilege of the statute. It is universally held that this being a personal privilege may be waived. In Elliott v. Kansas City, 198 Mo. 593, the court in passing upon the question, held that where the privilege of the statute has-once been waived it could not be withdrawn. Plaintiff’s assumption is that notwithstanding the privilege was withdrawn by the introduction of one of his physicians it was not waived as to the other. His position is not tenable. In the above case the court quotes with approval the holding in Morris v. Railroad, 148 N. Y. l. c. 92, 93. It is there held that when the privilege was once waived it ceased to exist. It is there said: ‘When a waiver is once made it is general and not special, and its effect cannot properly be limited to a particular purpose or a particular person. After the information had once been made- public no further injury can be inflicted upon such rights and interests of the patient as the statute was intended to protect, by its repetition at another time or by another person.’ ”

The Epstein case, supra, is so recent that a mention of the rule therein announced is sufficient. We concede the statute of privilege to be a wise one, but it should never be so construed as to make it both a shield and a dag’ger at one and the same time. If the patient is suffering from a malady the physician should not be allowed to first bring to light that affliction of the patient. The very purpose of the statute is to hide, as with a veil, the malady and trouble for which the physician treated her, and what may have passed between them in the confidential relationship of physician and patient. But when the veil has been lifted by the patient or with her consent, and the secrets of the sick chamber given to the world, what logic is there in saying that the patient can clog the wheels of justice itself, by closing the mouth of other physicians, who know the real facts. In other words, if the patient raises, or permits to be raised, the veil of secrecy with lying lips as to what the conditions were, should this waiver of secrecy still leave to her the power of suppressing the truth, by objecting to other physicians who about the same time treated her for the same identical alleged trouble? We think not. In other words if a patient is suffering from a given malady, and is treated lay several physicians near the same time, for the said same trouble or malady, then if she and one of her physicians with her consent, make public the character of her trouble, she has waived the right to, longer keep the exact character of that trouble further secret, and the other physicians are competent to testify as to what this malady 'or trouble was in reality. Any other rule would be but to permit a patient in a court of justice to play both fast and loose. Any other rule would permit the patient to “choose a serviceble and mellow one out of a number of physicians ’ ’ as said Lamm, J., in Smart v. Kansas City, supra. We (Lamm, J., and the writer hereof through Mm) said then that we should “construe the statute to mean that when a litigant breaks the seal of professional confidence and secrecy and waives it as to A, then by the same token it is broken and waived as to B, C, and D, who bore the same relation to him as did A.” To my mind that is the correct doctrine. To illustrate, if the patient is injured in a railway wreck, and calls several doctors in the course of a reasonable time, to treat him for such injuries, changing at times from one to another, but all treating him for the selfsame trouble, then if the. patient breaks the secrecy by permitting one to testify as to the character of his injury, it is broken as to all. Any other construction of the doctrine of waiver (a doctrine thoroughly recognized in this State) would permit the patient to continue to employ doctors until he got one to his choosing, and when he did so, could make him the sole agent to make public the secret of the sick room. Such a course would be an abhorrent fraud upon the courts and one for which they should not stand. Justice should not be trifled with in any such manner. And we repeat that, in the case at bar, the patient had some kind of a physical ailment (one side says “womb trouble” — the other pregnancy), but whatever it was, she had three physicians to treat her for it in the course of less than a month, and she herself and one of the physician's makes public what they say this trouble was, and not only this, but she goes further and says to the jury that Drs. Davis and Miller said that it was “womb trouble,” just as she and Dr. Gray testified, and I say in such case, Drs. Davis and Miller are competent witnesses, because the secrecy secured by the statute has been waived. The trial court erred in excluding these two witnesses. They should be permitted to testify upon the next trial, because a waiver once made can not be recalled. It remains until the final termination of the case.

V. But it is said that this evidence as to the prosecutrix not being pregnant in November and December, 1908, was immaterial, although offered by the State, and for that reason the defendant should not be permitted to . x rebut sucn testimony by these two tendered witnesses. There are several sufficient answers to this contention of the State. In the first place it is true that the State did not have to introduce this particular evidence, for it could have relied upon the general reputation of the prosecutrix, as theretofore shown. It is also true that as a general rule immaterial evidence can not be rebutted. But all this does not reach the point in this case. The State introduced this evidence upon the idea that it would strengthen the position of the State upon the question of the girl being chaste and of good repute — theretofore and at the time of the alleged offense. The time fixed by the State was less than nine months of the date of the alleged offense, leaving rather short period for reformation, if as a fact she was pregnant. The State introduced this prejudicial matter of its own volition upon the theory that it was competent and material, and should now be estopped from declaring it immaterial. In other words, the State should not be permitted to get an undue advantage of the defendant in such a manner. But aside from that, even if it be conceded that the evidence was immaterial, yet if such character of evidence is harmful and prejudicial, it can be rebutted, and the party introducing it is estopped from objecting to the rebuttal evidence.

Thus in 30 Am. So Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), p. 1103, it is said: “A party who draws from his own witness irrelevant testimony prejudicial to the opposing party ought not to be heard to object to its contradiction or impeachment on the ground of irrelevancy.”

So too in Sisler v. Shaffer, 43 W. Va. l. c. 770, the Supreme Court of West Virginia said: “His own evidence on the point was irrelevant, but having* introduced it in support of his evidence, the plaintiff had the right to contradict it. ‘A party who draws from his own witness irrelevant testimony, which is prejudicial to the opposing party, ought not to be heard to object to its contradiction on the ground of its irrelevancy.’ [State v. Sargent, 32 Me. 429.] Strange cattle having wandered through a gap made by himself, he cannot complain.”

In Grimes v. Hill, 15 Colo. l. c. 365, it is said: “The defendant, having introduced the testimony concerning the conversation with Williams in support of his side of the issue, was not privileged to deny the materiality of such testimony for the purpose of preventing its contradiction.”

So we say in this case: The State having introduced this testimony of the prosecutrix and Dr. Gray, on the theory that it helped the State’s case, had no right to deny the materiality of the evidence to prevent its contradiction by the other two doctors.

VI. There is another matter which might be suggested. If the State by its conduct, with the consent of the prosecutrix, had raised the veil of that secrecy imposed by the statute, and these two doctors became competent witnesses in the case, then the refusal of their testimony was absolute error, for the reason that the girl had testified that she had never known any man before this defendant. This evidence of pregnancy would contradict that statement of the prosecutrix. Not only so, but the defendant had the right to show that she had been intimate with other men in 1908, as bearing upon the question of her chaste character in August, 1909. [State v. Patterson, 88 Mo. 88; State v. Wheeler, 94 Mo. 252; State v. Sharp, 132 Mo. l. c. 173.] These opinions express the law of this State. State v. Dent, 170 Mo. 398, and. State v. Fogg, 206 Mo. 696, do not contravene the doctrine of the Patterson case, supra. This court can not say as a matter of law that if a woman has been unchaste in 1908, she has reformed by August 22, 1909. Such question is one for the jury upon all the facts. In the Sharp ease, supra, the trial court so amended an instruction as to let the jury pass upon the question of reformation, and we approved that action.

Upon the whole, the judgment of conviction in this case should be reversed and the cause remanded. It is so ordered.

All concur. Woodson and Walker, JJ., in separate opinion by Woodson, J.

CONCURRING- OPINION.

WOODSON, J.

I concur in the result reached in this case, not because I believe my learned associates have ■ correctly construed the statutes of confidential communications, but for the sole reason that the majority of the court have decided the matter so often against my views of the statutes, that I can see no useful purpose to be achieved by my continual dissent.

But as a final suggestion I wish, to ask my associates the same question that I propounded in the Epstein case, 250 Mo. 1, l. c. 41. Where is the case to which the statutes could possibly apply, if the construction placed upon them by the court, in this and the Epstein case, is a correct construction thereof?

The answer here will be as it was there--.

Walker, J., concurs.