Where the several claims of error are accompanied neither by argument nor by citation of appropriate authority, we are not called upon to consider the points so presented. ( People v. Koenig, 133 Cal.App. 701 [ 24 P.2d 852]; People v. Hollowwa, 138 Cal.App. 174 [ 31 P.2d 821].) In those few instances where some impropriety appears in the questions asked or statements made by the prosecutor, no prejudice resulted therefrom.
The evidence shows otherwise and is amply sufficient to establish the guilt of appellant as an independent principal. ( People v. Hollowwa, 138 Cal.App. 174 [ 31 P.2d 821].) [2] Moreover, aside from the evidence of forcible intercourse, there is ample evidence to sustain the conviction of appellant on the theory of aiding and abetting, for to be so convicted one need not have had intercourse with the person raped.
This statute, unlike the statutes of many states, does not undertake to visit with capital punishment any type or character of forcible abduction or kidnaping, except that specific kind of kidnaping designated by law as "kidnaping with intent to hold for ransom." See: Finch v. State (Fla.), supra; People v. Bruno, 140 Cal. Appe. 460, 35 P.2d 391. Compare: Hallowwa, 138 Cal.App. 174, 31 P.2d 821. Webster's New International Dictionary (2nd Edition) defines the word "ransom" as "the money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a captured person or persons; a payment that releases from captivity."