¶1 The prisoner was indicted and convicted of rape on a female under 10 years of age. Only one *608 exception appears in tbe record, and tbat is to tbe competency of evidence.
¶2 Tbe prosecutrix testified to tbe assault, and was cross-examined by tbe prisoner for the purpose of impeaching tbe evidence of tbe prosecutrix. Tbe State then introduced a witness to corroborate tbe prosecutrix,by proving a declaration of the prosecutrix made soon after tbe assault, in regard to the same. Tbe prisoner excepted to tbe admission of such evidence, the conversation having taken place in tbe absence of tbe prisoner. Tbe evidence is competent according to all tbe numerous decisions made for nearly a century. In Burnett v. Railway Co., 120 N. C., 517, this Court considered thq question in all its bearings, and cited a long list of tbe cases.
¶3 We were not favored with an argument in behalf of tbe prisoner. We are not aware of a single authority in conflict with the rule above referred to-.
¶4 We see no error in any part of tbe record, and must affirm the judgment of tbe Superior Court.
¶5 No error.