MALICE. Where a slanderous charge is made, malice is implied, except in case of a privileged communication. Malloy, 115-737. Misenheimer, 123-758.

SLANDER--PRESUMPTION OF THE INNOCENCE OF PROSECUTRIX.-On indictment for the slander of an innocent woman, her innocence is a question for the jury upon the evidence, and no presumption of her innocence can be allowed to weigh against the defendant. Notwithstanding the fact that the law raises a presumption in favor of the integrity of persons generally, it can not raise conflicting presumptions, and since every defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charge against him until proved to be guilty, there is necessarily no presumption as to the innocence of the prosecutrix in a case of alleged slander. McDaniel, 84-803.

INDICTMENT.—It is not necessary for the indictment to state "the circumstances under which the words were spoken by which the attempt is charged to have been made. McIntosh, 92--794.

An indictment which charges that defendant, "attempting wantonly and maliciously to injure and destroy the reputation of one L B, being an innocent and virtuous woman, did, by words spoken, declare, in substance, that the said L B was an incontinent woman," is sufficient without setting out the words spoken, or the circumstances under which they were spoken. Haddock, 109-.

An indictment which fails to charge that the prosecutrix is "an innocent woman" is fatally defective. Aldridge, 86-680.

CHARGE.-Defendant asked the following instruction: "That in passing upon her innocence, it is not requisite that the woman should commit a criminal act of sexual intercourse, but it is sufficient if the jury find such acts of indulgence in sexual propensities and a willingness to submit to the embraces of a man, short of actual connection, which are inconsistent with innocence and purity, and that if she attempted to have such connection and it was ineffectual, not because of her repugnance, but of some physical defect in her person, she is not an innocent woman in contemplation of the statute": Held, that the refusal to give such instruction was proper. Following State v. Davis, 92-764. Brown, 100-519. A charge that an innocent woman is "one who had never had actual illicit intercourse with a man" is correct. Davis, 92-764.

A witness having testified that the prosecutrix's character was good, defendant's counsel asked him if he had not heard one G say that he had had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. To this question the solicitor said he would make no objection, provided he be allowed to prove that G, who was then in another state, had denied making such statement. Defendant's counsel said he would object to such proof. The judge then asked, in the hearing of the jury, if defendant's counsel thought "that would be fair": Held, that such remark of the judge was not in violation of sec. 413 of The Code. Brown, 100-519.

In such case a witness having testified to the good character of another witness, J, in answer to questions put by the judge and solicitor, said that he permitted J to visit his family: Held, that the effect of such questions was simply to ascertain the witness' estimate of good character, and permitting them was not error. Ib.

Where the prosecutrix testifies that she has been married twelve years; that her first child was born six months after her marriage and that her husband was the father; that she had carnal intercourse with her husband before their marriage, but that she never had such intercourse with any other man, and there is proof that her general character for virtue is good, an instruction that if the jury believe that the prosecutrix never had sexual intercourse with any person except her husband, and

that she had, with the exception of what occurred between her and her husband before their marriage, been a virtuous woman, she was an innocent woman within the meaning of the statute, is proper. Grigg, 104882. Misenheimer, 123-758.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.-The word "or" in the statute can not be interpreted to mean "and," and the court can not punish a person convicted of this offence by both fine and imprisonment. Walters, 97-489.

SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS.

Ser LIQUOR SELLING-LOCAL OPTION.

SPRINGS, WELLS AND CISTERNS.

Sec. 602 (1114). c. 34, s. 97.

Springs, wells and cisterns, wilful injuring; penalty. R. C., 1850, c. 104.

If any person shall wilfully put into the well, spring or cistern of water of any person, any substance or thing, whereby such well, spring, or cistern may be endamaged, or the water thereof be made less wholesome or fit for use, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

STATUTE.

All acts passed at the same session of the legislature are to be considered as one statute. Bell, 25 (3 Ire.), 506.

If, pending an appeal, the statute authorizing the indictment is repealed, judgment will be arrested. Nutt, 61 (Phil.), 20.

The re-enactment by the legislature of a law in the terms of a former law at the same time it repeals the former law is not in contemplation of law a repeal, but is a reaffirmance of the former law, whose provisions are thus continued without any intermission. Williams, 117-753. Sutton, 100-474.

The title of an act is a legislative declaration of the tenor and object of the act, and when the meaning or subject matter of a statute is at all doubtful the title should be considered. Woolard, 119-779.

Where there are two statutes in pari materia and the latter contains no words of repeal they are to be taken as one law. Grove, 1—36.

An act of the legislature subsequent to and in amendment of a former act of the same session and correcting an ambiguity therein, is not invalidated by the fact that the date of the ratification of the amended act is erroneously stated, provided it sufficiently appear what prior act is referred to. Woolard, 119–779.

Where the statute creating the offence is repealed during the pendency of the indictment, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. Cress, 49 (4 Jones), 421.

In a penal statute "or" will never be construed "and" so as to make it more penal. Taylor, 124-803. Kearney, 8-53.

STOCK LAW AND FENCES.

See also INJURY TO PROPERTY.

Sec. 603 (2802). When landowner authorized to remove his half of joint fence; notice; penalty for illegally removing such fence. 1868-'9, c. 275, s. 8. 1883, c. 111.

If any owner of land liable to contribute for the keeping up of a division fence, shall determine neither to cultivate his land nor permit his stock to run thereon, he may give the adjoining owner three months' notice of his determination; and in that case, at any time after the expiration of such notice, and between the first day of January and the first day of March, but at no other time, he may remove the half of the fence kept up by himself, and shall be no longer liable to keep up the same; and if any person shall remove any part of such fence contrary to this section he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Sec. 604 (2799). c. 121, s. 2. Every planter shall make a sufficient fence about his cleared ground under cultivation, at least five feet high, unless there shall be some navigable stream or deep watercourse that shall be sufficient, instead of such fence, and unless his lands shall be situated within the limits of a county, township or district, wherein the stock law may be in force.

Planters to keep sufficient fences. R. C., c. 48, s. 1. 1777, 1791, c. 354, s. 1.

The law requiring the keeping up of lawful fences is not confined to planters, but applies to all persons. Bell, 25 (3 Ire.), 506.

Where the jury have found the facts it becomes a question of law as to whether, according to the facts found, the fence is such a one as the law requires, or whether the navigable stream, watercourse, etc., is suf fcient in lieu of a fence. Lamb, 30 (8 Ire.), 229.

A "pasture" is not "cleared ground under cultivation" within the meaning of the statute requiring a fence five feet high. Perry, 64-305. A creek, ponded by a mill-dam, five feet deep and twenty-five yards wide, which is frequently crossed by hogs, is not a sufficient watercourse to supply the place of a fence. Lamb, 30 (8 Ire.), 229.

The statute does not apply to mere hirelings and laborers on farms, nor to a foreman whose business is simply to obey instructions of his employer, but a real manager or overseer, with discretion to employ the labor furnished in fencing, is liable to indictment for failure to keep up a proper fence. Taylor, 69-543.

The statute does not extend to persons in the rightful possession of the premises, as quasi tenants, occupying the same by consent of the owner. Williams, 44 (Bus.), 197.

JUDGE DECIDES WHETHER FENCE OR STREAM SUFFICIENT.-What is a sufficient fence, and what kind of a navigable stream, or deep watercourse is to be deemed sufficient instead of a fence, are questions of law for the court. Lamb, 30 (8 Ired.), 229.

VIOLATION OF STATUTE A MISDEMEANOR.-A violation of the provisions of this statute is an indictable offence, since all acts or omissions contrary to the command or prohibition of a statute prohibiting a public grievance, is a misdemeanor at common law. Distinguishing State v. Snuggs, 85 N. C., 541. Bloodworth, 94-918.

SPECIAL VERDICT.-Since a special verdict must find all the facts necessary to constitute the offence charged, a special verdict under this statute which fails to find whether defendant comes within the exceptions specified, must be set aside. Bloodworth, 94-918.

Sec. 605 (2811). Unlawful for live stock to run at large within the limits of a county, township or district, which shall adopt the stock law as in this chapter provided; penalties. 1889, c. 504.

No person shall allow his live stock to run at large within the limits of any county, township or district, if the qualified voters of such county, township or district shall adopt the provisions of this chapter relating to the stock law; and no person living within the limits of such stock-law territory shall permit any of his live stock to go or enter upon the lands of another without having obtained leave from the owner of such lands. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The penalties for violating this section and the succeeding sections of this chapter shall apply to all localities where a stock law prevails or shall prevail pursuant to law, and the punishment for every such offence shall not exceed a fine of fifty dollars, or imprisonment for thirty days.

Sec. 606 (2818) Misappropriation of money by impounder. 1889, c. 504.

Any impounder wilfully misappropriating money that he may receive under this chapter, or in any manner wilfully violating any of its provisions, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and the punishment for every such offence shall not exceed a fine of fifty dollars, or imprisonment for thirty days.

Sec. 607 (2819). Penalty for receiving or releasing impounded stock. 1889, c. 504.

Any person unlawfully receiving or releasing any impounded stock, or unlawfully attempting to do so, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and the punishment for every such offence shall not exceed a fine of fifty dollars, or imprisonment for thirty days.

The prosecutor drove defendant's hogs into an enclosure while defendant was in pursuit of them in view of the prosecutor and after she had sent a message to him not to imprison them, as she was trying to catch them: Held, that defendant was not guilty of releasing impounded stock. Hunter, 118-1196.

Sec. 608 (2820). Penalty for injuring fences or leaving open gate. 1889, c. 504.

Any person wilfully tearing down, or in any manner breaking a fence or gate, or leaving open a gate erected around a stock-law territory, or wilfully breaking any enclosure within any township, district or county where a stock law is in force, and wherein any stock is confined, so that the same may escape therefrom, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and the punishment for every such offence shall not exceed a fine of fifty dollars, or imprisonment for thirty days.

Sec 609 (2827). Persons living within stock-law territory allowing stock to run at large beyond the limits of said territory, misdemeanor. 1885, c. 371. 1889, cs. 266, 504.

Any person having stock within the limits of a stock-law territory, and allowing the same to run at large beyond the boundaries of said territory, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or impris oned not more than thirty days: Provided, that a person owning land outside of the stock-law territory may turn his or her stock upon the said land outside of the stock-law district.

NOTE. The above section does not apply to counties lying west of the Blue Ridge. Laws of 1885, c. 371.

DUTY OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.-County commissioners are not required to personally superintend the fence around the no-fence territory; the statute only requires them to levy the necessary taxes, appoint committees, etc. Commissioners of Wayne, 97-388.

The indictment must point out the specific duty which the county commissioners are required to perform. Ib.

Sec. 610. Unlawful to drive horse, etc., from the range into stock law district to secure poundage. 1895, c. 141.

SECTION 1. Any person who shall wilfully and unlawfully tole, drive, or in any way move any other person's horse, mule, ass, neat cattle, sheep, hog, goat, or dog, from the range, or elsewhere,