ever, as was stated in a previous section,1 not inflexible in the case of statutory of fenses, for the legislature has the power to dispense with the necessity for a criminal intent, and sometimes does so. Public policy may require the legislature, in prohibiting and punishing particular acts under certain circumstances, to provide, expressly or impliedly, that any person who shall do the act shall do it at his peril, and that he shall not be allowed to escape punishment by showing that he acted in good faith, without negligence, and in ignorance of the existence of the circumstances rendering the act unlawful. If the language and subject-matter of the statute show clearly that this was the in

Am. Rep. 575; Stern v. State, 53 Ga. 229, 21 Am. Rep. 266; Duncan v. State, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 148; State v. Hause, 71 N. C. 518.

Sometimes a statute punishes any person who shall "knowingly" do the prohibited act. In such a case, it is clear that the offense is not committed by one who does the act in ignorance of the existence of the facts which render the statute applicable. This is so, for example, under a statute punishing any person who shall "knowingly" sell liquor to a minor without his parent's consent. Fielding v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 52 S. W. 69.

107 Ante, § 56.

tention of the legislature, the courts must give it effect, however harshly the statute may seem to operate in the particular instance.108 But it should not thus construe a statute, unless the intention of the legislature is clear.109 In construing the various statutes the courts and judges have differed, and some of the decisions cannot possibly be reconciled.

(b) Particular Statutes.-Mistake of fact, though bona fide, and not due to negligence, has been held by some of the courts, though in some cases not by others, to be no defense in prosecutions under statutes punishing the following offenses: Receiving two or more lunatics into an unlicensed house; 110 transportation of a slave, without written permission of his owner, by any railroad company, or by the owner or captain of any steam

108 State v. Presnell, 12 Ired. (N. C.) 103, Beale's Cas. 177; Com. v. Farren, 9 Allen (Mass.) 489; Com. v. Mash, 7 Metc. (Mass.) 472, Beale's Cas 304; State v. Kelly, 54 Ohio St. 166; State v. Smith, 10 R. I. 258.

109 Reg. v. Tolson, 23 Q. B. Div. 168, Beale's Cas. 286; Duncan v. State, 7 Humph. (Tenn.)

148.

110 Reg. v. Bishop, 5 Q. B. Div. 259.

boat;111 keeping for sale or selling naphtha under an assumed name;112 killing, for the purpose of sale, a calf less than four weeks old;113 keeping for sale or setting adulterated milk, 114 or confectionery, 115 or tobacco,116 or food or drugs,117 or liquors ;118 keeping for sale or selling oleomargarine not so marked or colored as to show what it is;119 keeping for sale or selling intoxicating li quors;120 selling intoxicating liquors to mi

111 State v. Baltimore & S. Steam Co., 13 Md. 181.

But see Duncan v. State, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 148; Birney v. State, 8 Ohio, 230, Beale's Cas. 303; post, notes 125, 127.

112 Com. v. Wentworth, 118 Mass. 441.

113 Com. v. Raymond, 97 Mass. 567.

114 Com. v. Farren, 9 Allen (Mass.) 489; Com. v. Waite, 11 Allen (Mass.) 264, 87 Am. Dec. 711; Com. v. Smith, 103 Mass. 444; State v. Smith, 10 R. I. 258; People v. Kibler, 106 N. Y. 321. 115 See Com. v. Chase, 125 Mass. 202. 116 Reg. v. Woodrow, 15 Mees. & W. 404. 117 State v. Kelly, 54 Ohio St. 166, 177.

Sale of vinegar below a certain standard. People v. Worden Grocer Co. (Mich.) 77 N. W. 315.

118 State v. Stanton, 37 Conn. 421.

119 State v. Newton, 50 N. J. Law, 534; Com. v. Weiss, 139 Pa. St. 247, 23 Am. St. Rep. 182.

120 Com. v. Boynton, 2 Allen (Mass.) 160. Beale's

nors or to persons who are in the habit of becoming intoxicated;121 permitting minors to play billiards, or to be in billiard rooms or saloons.122

Mistake or ignorance of fact, when bond fide and not due to negligence, has been held a good defense in prosecutions under statutes punishing the following offenses:123 Being

Cas. 306; Com. v. O'Kean, 152 Mass. 584; Com. v. Goodman, 97 Mass. 117; Kring v. State, 66 Miss. 502. Contra, Farrell v. State, 32 Ohio St. 456.

121 Barnes v. State, 19 Conn. 398; McCutcheon v. People, 69 Ill. 601; Farmer v. People, 77 Ill. 322; State v. Thompson, 74 Iowa, 119; Ulrich v. Com., 6 Bush. (Ky.) 400; State v. Heck, 23 Minn. 549; In re Carlson's License, 127 Pa. St. 330; Com. v. Zelt, 138 Pa. St. 615; State v. Cain, 9 W. Va. 559; State v. Farr, 34 W. Va. 84; State v. Baer, 37 W. Va. 1; State v. Hartfiel, 24 Wis. 60. And see Com. v. Finnegan, 124 Mass. 324.

Contra, Alder v. State, 55 Ala. 16; Brown v. State, 24 Ind. 113; Goetz v. State, 41 Ind. 162; Robinius v. State, 63 Ind. 235; Williams v. State, 48 Ind. 306; Mulreed v. State, 107 Ind. 62; Faulks v. People, 39 Mich. 200; People v. Welch, 71 Mich. 548; Crabtree v. State, 30 Ohio St. 382.

122 State v. Kinkead, 57 Conn. 173; State v. Probasco, 62 Iowa, 400; Com. v. Emmons, 98 Mass. 6. Contra, Marshall v. State, 49 Ala. 21; Stern

v. State, 53 Ga. 229, 21 Am. Rep. 266.

123 See the cases cited as contra in notes preceding.

in possession of government stores marked with the government mark;124 receiving or transporting of any colored person by the owner or captain of any steamboat, without particular evidence of his freedom;125 allowing a vehicle to be used for travel on Sunday, except in a case of necessity or charity;126 harboring or secreting slaves;127 keeping for sale or selling diseased meat.128

(c) Bigamy and Adultery.-In a number of cases the question has arisen whether ignorance or mistake of fact is a good defense in prosecutions for bigamy or adultery. Under statutes punishing any person who, being married, should marry any other person during the life of his or her wife or husband, some courts have held that a bona fide and reasonable belief in the death of the former husband or wife is a good defense, while

124 Reg. v. Sleep, Leigh & C. 44. See, also, Rex v. Banks, 1 Esp. 144; Anon., Fost. C. L. 439, Beale's Cas. 284.

125 Duncan v. State, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 148. And see note 127, infra. Contra, see note 111, supra.

126 Myers v. State, 1 Conn. 502, Beale's Cas. 302 127 Birney v. State, 8 Ohio, 230, Beale's Cas, 303. See note 125, supra.

128 Teague v. State, 25 Tex. App. 577,