Whether knowledge of the relationship of the parties is or is not an essential element depends upon

the statutory definition of the offense. Under some statutes knowledge is essential.60 In other states ignorance of the relationship is no defense.61

52 State vs. Nugent, 20 Wash., 522;

David vs. People, 204 Ill., 479, 486; State vs. Chambers, 87 Iowa, 1.

53 Norton vs. State, 106 Ind., 165;

State vs. Hurd., 101 Iowa, 391; People vs. Patterson, 102 Cal., 244; State vs. Thomas, 53 Iowa, 214.

54 Schoenfeldt vs. State, 30 Tex.

App., 796.

55 Ter. vs. Corbett, 3 Mont., 50;

State vs. Guiton, 51 La., 155.

56 Clark vs. State, 39 Tex. Cr., 179;

People vs. Lake, 110 N. Y., 6;

Baker vs. State, 30 Ala., 521;

Clark vs. State, 39 Tex. Cr., 179; State vs. Lawrence, 95

N. C, 659. 57 Norton vs. State, 106 Ind., 163;

Contra Chancellor vs. State, 47 Miss., 278. 58 Baumer vs. State, 49 Ind., 544.

59 People vs. Kaiser, 119 Cal., 456.

Section 172. Bad Reputation Of The Female

The fact that the female had sexual relations with other men is no defense to incest.62 Nor is her bad reputation for chastity a defense.63 Evidence that the female - the daughter of the accused - was an inmate of a house of ill-fame and giving her earnings to her father is incompetent against him.64

Section 173. Other Acts Between The Parties

Other prior acts of sexual intercourse between the parties may be shown in evidence;65 even acts which are barred by the statute of limitations may be shown as tending to prove the continuation of the conduct of the parties.66

Section 174. Proving Relationship

The relationship and pedigree of the parties may be shown by reputation;67 also by admissions of the accused.68