TORTURE NOT NECESSARY.-The needless killing of chickens is of itself eruelty within the meaning of the statute, though done without torture. Neal, 120-613.

The statute does not require the allegation or proof of torture or cruelty, except as involved in unnecessary suffering knowingly and wilfully permitted. Porter, 112-887.

KILLING TO PREVENT DESTRUCTION OF CROP.-Where the killing was wilful the fact that chickens killed by a defendant were killed while destroying peas in the garden of defendant's father, and after the prosecutor had been warned to keep the chickens from trespassing in the garden, is not a defence to an indictment for cruelty to animals. Neal, 120-613.

CHICKENS-IMPOUNDING.-Chickens could be impounded at common law.

Neal, 120-613.

INDICTMENT. An indictment for killing a hog running at large in a town in violation of an ordinance prohibiting the running at large of hogs therein, which simply charges that the killing was done "unlawfully and on purpose," can not be sustained. Tweedy, 115-704.

An averment that defendant did "knowingly, wilfully and needlessly act in a cruel manner towards a certain fowl, to-wit: a chicken, by killing said chicken, the said chicken being a useful fowl," is a sufficiently intelligible charge that the defendant was guilty of cruelty to animals. Neal, 120-613.

BURDEN NOT ON DEFENDANT.--An instruction that it was incumbent on the defendant to justify the killing of the chickens was erroneous. Neal, 120-613.

INDICTMENT SUSTAINED.-A charge of cruelty to animals is sustained by proof of impaling one chicken on a sharp stick and beating a hen to death. Neal, 120-613.

PIGEONS USED AS TARGETS.-Killing or wounding pigeons used as targets, for amusement and sport, is indictable under this section. Porter, 112887.

Sec. 279 (2483). Bear-baiting, etc., prohibited. 1881, c. 368, s. 2. 65.

1891, c.

Any person who shall keep, or use, or in any way be connected with, or interested in the management of, or shall receive money for the admission of any person to, any place kept or used for the purpose of fighting, or baiting any bull, bear, dog, cock, or other animal; and any person who shall encourage, aid or assist therein, or who shall permit or suffer any place to be so kept or used, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid.

Sec. 280 (2484). Failure to provide impounded animals with food, a misdemeanor. 1881, c. 368, s. 3. 1891, c. 65.

Any person who shall impound, or cause to be impounded in any pound or other place, any animal, shall supply to the same during such confinement a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water, and in default thereof shall be guilty of a

misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid.

Sec. 281 (2486). Misdemeanor to carry in conveyance any animal in a cruel manner. 1881, c. 368, s. 5. 1891, c. 65.

If any person shall carry or cause to be carried in or upon any vehicle, or other conveyance, any animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days; whenever he shall be taken into custody therefor by any officer, such officer may take charge of such vehicle or other conveyance and its contents, and deposit the same in some safe place of custody; and the necessary expenses which may be incurred for taking charge of and keeping and sustaining the same shall be a lien thereon, to be paid before the same can be lawfully reclaimed; or the said expenses, or any part thereof remaining unpaid, may be recovered by the person incurring the same of the owner of said animal in an action therefor.

Sec. 282 (2487). Misdemeanor to instigate or engage in any act of cruelty to animals. 1881, c. 368, s. 6. 1891, c. 65.

Any person who shall wilfully set on foot, or instigate, or move to carry on, or promote, or engage in, or do any act towards the furtherance of any act of cruelty to any animal, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid.

Sec. 283 (2488). The sale of animals having glanders forbidden. 1881, c. 368, s. 7. 1891, c. 65.

Any person who shall sell, or offer for sale, or who shall use, or expose, or cause or procure to be sold or offered for sale, or to be used or exposed, any horse or other animal having the disease known as glanders or farcy, or any other contagious or infectious disease known by such person to be dangerous to life, or which shall be diseased past recovery, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid.

Sec. 284 (2489). Animals with glanders to be killed. 1881, c. 368, s. 8. 1891, c. 65.

Every animal having the glanders or farcy shall at once be de prived of life by the owner or person having charge thereof upon

discovery or knowledge of its condition, and any such owner or person omitting or refusing to comply with this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid.

Sec. 285 (2490). Construction of certain words. 1881, c. 368, s. 15.

In this chapter, and in every law which may be enacted, relating to animals, the words animal or dumb animal shall be held to include every living creature; the words torture, torment or cruelty shall be held to include every act, omission or neglect, whereby unjustifiable physical pain, suffering or death is caused or permitted; but nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting the lawful shooting of birds, deer and other game for the purpose of human food.

Sec. 286 (2321). When driven from one part of the state through another, must be certified to be healthy, etc.; misdemeanor for justice to grant certificate without affidavit. R. C., c. 17, s. 5.

No person shall drive any cattle from any part of the state through any other part thereof, without first obtaining and carrying with him a certificate under the hands and seals of two justices of the peace of the county where such cattle were severally purchased or collected from the range, accompanied with an affidavit of the owner setting forth the place where said cattle were purchased, or had ranged as aforesaid, and describing therein the nature of the soil and growth of timber on such place; and also that said cattle were, at the time of purchase or removal, sound and free from any infectious distemper. And if any justice shall grant such certificate without such affidavit of the owner, it shall be a misdemeanor in office.

Sec. 287 (2322). Persons allowing distempered cattle to go at large to be guilty of misdemeanor, etc. 1868-'9, c. 50, s. 1.

If any person shall drive or cause to be driven any cattle from any county in this state, or from any county or district in any other state into any county in this state, at any time between the first day of April and the first day of November, knowing such cattle to be distempered or otherwise infected, or shall permit any distempered cattle to roam at large and enter any uninfected, district, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be liable to an action for all damages which may arise from a violaton of this section.

Sec. 288 (2323). When subject to damage only. 1368-'9, c. 50, s. 2.

If any person shall drive or cause to be driven any cattle as aforesaid, not knowing them to be infected, and losses should be sustained by the spreading of distempers or infection from said cattle, he shall be subject to damages only.

Sec. 289 (2324). When not subject to penalty. 1868-'9, c 50, s. 3.

If any person complies with the requirements of section twentythree hundred and twenty-one, without regard to growth or locality, said person shall not be subject to the above penalties.

Sec. 290 (1001). Cattle and live stock, mismarking, a misdemeanor. R. C., C. 34. 1797, c. 485, s. 2.

If any person shall knowingly alter or deface the mark or brand of any other person's horse, mule, or ass, neat cattle, sheep, goat, or hog, or shall knowingly mismark or brand any such beast that may be unbranded or unmarked, not properly his own, with intent to defraud any other person, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished as if convicted of larceny.

INDICTMENT-ORIGINAL MARK.-An indictment for altering the mark of a cattle-beast need not set forth the original mark nor in what manner the alteration was made. O'Neal, 29 (7 Ired.), 251.

PAROL EVIDENCE OF MARK.-Parol evidence is competent to prove the mark of the prosecutor. King, 84-737.

Where the act is proved to have been wilfully done the intent to injure or defraud the owner recessarily follows unless there be proof to the contrary. Davis, 24 (2 Ired.), 153.

The fact that the cattle had strayed from the owner at the time the injury was done is no defence. Davis, 24 (2 Ired.), 153.

Sec. 291 (2822). Definition of word "stock."

The word "stock" in this chapter shall be construed to mead horses, mules, colts, cows, calves, sheep, goats, jennets, and all neat eattle and swine.

INSANITY.

Where insanity is relied on as a defence the burden is on the defendant to establish it to the satisfaction of the jury. Potts, 100-457.

While the law recognizes delirium tremens as a species of insanity, "dipsomania" and "moral insanity" are not recognized as defences. Potts, 100-457. McDaniel, 115-807.

Where hereditary insanity is offered as an excuse for crime it must appear that the kind of insanity proposed to be proven as existing in the prisoner is no temporary malady, but that it is notorious, and of the same species with which other members of the family have been afflicted. Christmas, 51 (6 Jones), 471.

Where, upon his arraignment, it is suggested that a prisoner is insane, and not capable of conducting his defence, the proper manner of procedure is to submit an issue to the jury, in order to ascertain this fact, and while there are precedents for submitting the issue as to guilt at the same time, the practice is disapproved. Haywood, 94-847.

Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for the commission of crime. Keath, 83-626.

If a prisoner after conviction of a capital felony suggests insanity, the judgment must be suspended until the fact can be tried by a jury; if after judgment execution must be likewise stayed. Vann, 84-722.

The prisoner having been found insane the court ordered that he be confined in the asylum until his mind be restored, "upon the happening of which event the authorities of said asylum are hereby ordered to notify the clerk of the superior court for the county of Granville to the end that he may be returned to said county for trial." The prisoner afterwards escaped from the asylum, but was retaken, put on trial and convicted: Held, that an objection that the prisoner could not be required to plead until the asylum authorities had certified that he had recovered his sanity could not be sustained, since the court's authority to inquire into his mental condition and try him, if found sane, did not depend on the action of the asylum authorities. Pritchett, 106-667.

A motion for a new trial on the ground that one of the jurors became insane shortly after the rendition of the verdict, and might be supposed to have been insane while on the jury, may be denied in the discretion of the court, in the absence of any evidence that the juror was insane while acting as a juror. Rogers, 94-860.

The insanity which takes away the criminal quality of an act must be such as amounts to a mental disease, and prevent the accused from knowing the nature and quality of the act he is doing. Brandon, 53 (8 Jones), 463.

If the prisoner at the time of the commission of the act was in a state of mind to comprehend his relations to other persons, the nature of the act and its criminal character, or in other words, if he was conscious of doing wrong at the time he committed the deed, then he is guilty; but if he was under the visitation of God, and could not distinguish between good and evil and did not know what he did, he is not guilty of any offence. Haywood, 61 (Phil.), 376.

Where, on indictment for bigamy, want of mental capacity at the time of the second marriage is relied on as a derence, the burden is on the defendant to satisfy the jury, but not beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had not sufficient mental capacity to know right from wrong. Davis, 109780.

On indictment for murder, defendant pleaded: "I admit the killing, but was insane at the commission thereof, therefore not guilty." The court rejected all of the plea except "not guilty:" Held, no error, since under the plea of not guilty every defence to the charge embraced in the rejected part of the plea was admissible. Potts, 100-457.

If hereditary insanity is offered as an excuse for crime it must be shown that the kind of insanity proposed to be proven as existing in the defendant is no temporary malady; but that it is notorious, and of the same species with which other members of the family have been afflicted. Christmas, 51 (6 Jones), 471.