Several witnesses testified to the good reputation which the defendant bore in the community where he resided and that fact was not contested by the state. In Hodo v. State, 42 Okla. Cr. 65, 274 P. 688, this court held: "In a prosecution for seduction under promise of marriage, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be corroborated as to the promise of marriage and illicit intercourse, but need not be as to her being unmarried and of previous chaste character.
Miller v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 255, 131 P. 717, L. R. A. 1915A, 1088; Corliss v. State, supra; Tudor v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 67, 167 P. 341; Wiswell v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 517, 173 P. 662; Ewing v. State, 17 Okla. Cr. 690, 190 P. 274. In Hodo v. State, 42 Okla. Cr. 65, 274 P. 688, this court held that it was not always error for a trial court to refuse to have the entire record taken, but that it was error for a court to arbitrarily refuse to have objections of counsel and proper parts of the record taken by the reporter. In the case at bar, the court refused to have the stenographer brought into court to take the record objected to by counsel, although proper demand for the same was made, stating at that time, "All that counsel says is true," and promising a bill of exceptions.