The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.
In a case of the kind before us, the burden is upon the State *Page 9 to prove beyond a reasonable doubt three essential elements: first, an assault; second, an intent to have carnal knowledge of the female; third, the purpose to carry into effect this intent with force and against the will of the female. It is not argued that the assault was not proved. Much is said by counsel on the argument that the intent was lacking. As to this we disagree. The evidence does not reveal any effort whatever to rob the girl of any of her personal property. The assailant had ample time to do so. He did not disturb her money or her check, or make any effort to get her watch. That the attack was made for the purpose of robbery, or any other purpose save that of satisfying the lustful desires of the defendant, can not be drawn from this record save by the wildest speculation. That the attack was made solely for the purpose of having carnal knowledge of the female attacked, forceably and against her will, is amply sustainable by the evidence. First, the difference in race is legitimate to consider. Again, the endearing term he used to her one week before, within itself, we think, reflects the intent. Then also, the dragging of the girl toward the little house and the grassy spot, accompanied by the words "come on," evidences intent. All of these facts, taken together, certainly authorize, if they do not demand, a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the intent was for the purpose alleged in the indictment. The record is overwhelming in its proof that such intent was accompanied by force and against the will of the female.
The decisions cited and relied on by the plaintiff in error are as follows: Johnson v. State, 63 Ga. 355; Gaskin v.State, 105 Ga. 631 (31 S.E. 740); Dorsey v. State,108 Ga. 477 (34 S.E. 135); Pauldo v. State, 29 Ga. App. 389 (115 S.E. 668); Little v. State, 42 Ga. App. 222 (155 S.E. 352); Green v. State, 42 Ga. App. 437 (156 S.E. 637). These cases are by their facts differentiated from the instant case. The facts of the case at bar are more nearly like those set forth in Davis v. State, 46 Ga. App. 732, where this court upheld the conviction. The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed. Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur. *Page 10