Information charging the carnal knowledge and abuse of a female child under the age of sixteen, brought to the Superior Court in New London County and tried to the jury before Qase, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty of an assault with intent to carnally know and abuse, and appeal by the accused. The child as to whom the abuse was charged, became six years of age two days before she was sworn as a witness.
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1958
¶1
But one reason of appeal is assigned, namely, that the court erred in ruling on the preliminary examination cf.the child that she understood the nature of an oath and that she was competent to testify as a witness. The finding shows that this reason is without foundation.
Holcomb
v.
Holcomb,
28 Conn. 177;
Wheeler
v.
United States,
159 U. S. 523, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 93.
¶2
On the argument before us another point was pressed, namely, that it appears from the transcript of the stenog
*317
rapher’s notes that'the court did not pass upon the competency of the child to be a witness before admitting her to testify, but only ruled that it would allow the oath to be administered to her and leave the matter to be disposed of in its charge to the jury.
¶3
Although the transcript and the charge have not been printed for use on this appeal, they became, by the action of the trial court, part of the record of the cause in this court, and could be referred to as such for any proper purpose. See Rules of Court, p. 99, §§ 20-22. Without considering whether there is anything in them inconsistent with the finding, it is enough to say that thejr cannot be of any benefit to the appellant, since the claim of error in question was not made a reason of appeal; contradicts the only reason of appeal which is stated; and no leave has been sought to introduce it by an amendment of the appeal. General Statutes, §§
798,802;
Rules of Court, p. 103, § 39.
