COUNTY JURISDICTION.-Under Revisal, section 3361, it is not necessary that the offense of bigamy should be committed in the county where the bill is found, to confer jurisdiction, and the proper remedy, where permissible, is by plea in abatement. Long, 143–671.

OFFENSE COMMITTED IN ANOTHER STATE.-BURDEN.-Where it appears that the offense was committed outside of this state, jurisdiction of the courts of this state is ousted; but the presumption is in favor of jurisdiction, and the burden of proof is on the defendant. He must prove that the offense had not in fact been committed in the county where the bill was found, and a motion to quash or in arrest will not be granted. Revisal, 3255. Long, 143

671.

BILL OF PARTICULARS.-If the defendant desires fuller information upon which to prepare his defense than is required to be charged in the indictment for bigamy, Revisal, section 3361, he should ask for a bill of particulars. Revisal, 3244. Long, 143-671.

ABSENCE-DIVORCE.-The proviso of Revisal, 3361, as to divorce and seven years absence are matters of defense, which the defendant must prove to withdraw himself from the operation of the statute. Long, 143-671.

EXHIBITION OF LICENSE.-Where eye-witnesses testify to the marriage and a certified copy of the marriage license filled up by the justice who married the defendant is in evidence, it is not error for the court to instruct the jury that if the "license was exhibited to the justice it would be presumed that the ceremony was regular and fulfilled the requirements of the law," the exception being that there was no evidence that the license was exhibited to the justice. Davis, 109-780.

MARRIAGE OF THOSE WHO WERE FORMERLY SLAVES.-Where a marriage betwen persons who were formerly slaves is proven to have taken place in 1857, followed by cohabitation, the fact that no consent to such marriage has been given since emancipation, or since the act of 1866, c. 40, validating such marriages, and requiring such persons to acknowledge such cohabitation before the clerk of the county court and an entry of the acknowledgment to be made, does not invalidate such marriage nor prevent either of such persons from being convicted of bigamy in marrying another afterwards. Whitford,

86-636.

Where persons were married while slaves and continued to live together as husband and wife after the abolition of slavery, they were, by virtue of chapter 40, laws 1866, legally married and no acknowledgment before an officer was necessary. Melton, 120-591.

The admission by defendant of his former marriage is competent against him, though such statement may have referred to the relations which he and his former wife sustained to each other as man and wife in slavery times. Melton, 120-591.

Where one witness testified that defendant had been married to his first wife thirty-nine years and had admitted two years before the trial that he had another wife living, and it appeared that the defendant had testified on the preliminary examination before a justice of the peace to such first marriage while he and she were slaves, it was proper to refuse an instruction that, on the evidence, the jury could not convict. Melton, 120-591.

INDICTMENT. An indictment for bigamy need not contain an averment that the defendant had not been divorced from his first wife, since that is a matter of defense. Melton, 120-591.

ADMISSION OF FIRST MARRIAGE.-The first marriage may be proved by the admission of the defendant, or by circumstantial evidence. Wylde, 110

500.

CONSTITUTION-SECOND MARRIAGE.-That part of the statute which attempts to constitute a second, or bigamous, marriage in another state without the subsequent living together of the parties a crime in this state is unconstitutional. Cutshall, 110-538.

FIRST WIFE COMPETENT WITNESS.-The first wife of the defendant is a competent witness to prove the marriage, public cohabitation as man and wife being public acknowledgment of the relation and not coming within the nature of the confidential relations which the policy of the law forbids either to give in evidence. Melton, 120-591.

RECORD OF MARRIAGES.-The record of marriages for the county is admissible to prove a marriage. Melton, 120–591.

LICENSE ADMISSIBLE.-The original marriage license signed by the justice solemnizing the marriage is admissible to prove a marriage, though neither the justice nor the witnesses attesting the certificate as being present at the marriage are present in court. Melton, 120-591.

JURISDICTION. It is the second marriage while the first is living that constitutes the crime of bigamy; and when such second marriage takes place in another state, the courts of this state can not take jurisdiction of the offense. Barnett, 83-615.

SUFFICIENT ALLEGATION OF FIRST MARRIAGE.-An indictment which alleges that defendant, being a married man, did marry a certain person during the life of his first wife, he well knowing at the time of the second marriage that his first wife was living, and he not having been divorced from her, is sufficient. Davis, 109-780.

NOT NECESSARY TO NEAGTIVE DIVORCE FROM FIRST WIFE.-It is not necessary in an indictment for bigamy to negative a divorce from the first wife. Davis, 109-780.

VENUE. The indictment must be in the county in which the second marriage took place. Bray, 35 (13 Ired.), 289.

WIFE ABSENT SEVEN YEARS.-Absence of the wife for seven years, caused by being driven away by her husband, does not justify him in remarrying without making inquiry as to whether the first wife was living. Goulden, 134-744.

BURDEN AS TO DEATH OF FIRST WIFE.-The burden is on the defendant to show that he did not know that his first wife was living. Goulden, 134– 743.

ADMISSIONS. The first marriage may be proved by the admissions of the defendant. Goulden, 134-743.

FIRST WIFE DRIVEN AWAY.-Where defendant testifies that he drove his first wife away, his reasons for doing so are not admissible. Goulden, 134– 743.

A belief by the defendant that his first wife is dead, or his ignorance of her being alive, she having been away less than seven years, is no defense to a prosecution for bigamy. Goulden, 134-744.

The burden is on the defendant to show that the wife had absented herself for seven years before the second marriag, and also that he was ignorant all the time that she was living. Goulden, 134–746.

Where the husband drove the wife off, such absence of the wife will not excuse him from making inquiry as to whether his wife is alive before marrying again, even after the lapse of seven years. Goulen, 134-748.

BILL OF PARTICULARS.

Sec. 82 (3244). Bill of particulars.

In all indictments when further information not required to be set out therein is desirable for the better defense of the accused, the court, upon motion, may, in its discretion, require the solicitor to furnish a bill of particulars of such matters.

Where the indictment does not convey sufficient information to enable the defendant to prepare for his trial he may apply to the prosecuting officer for a bill of particulars, and if refused he may apply to the court to direct that a bill of particulars be furnished. Brady, 107-822.

Where an indictment otherwise unobjectionable is not sufficiently specific as to the nature of the charge, and the defendant fails to demand a bill of particulars before trial, after conviction the court will not arrest the judgment for such objection. Shade, 115-757.

If the offense charged is not set out as clearly as defendant wishes he is entitled to a bill of particulars, but no indictment will be quashed or judg ment arrested for trivial defects. Pickett, 118-1231.

A bill of particulars, not being made by the grand jury, can not supply a defect in the indictment. Van Pelt, 136-633.

Where the solicitor files a bill of particulars the state is confined in its proof to the items therein set out. Van Pelt, 136-633.

Where, on motion of defendant, the solicitor is required to elect, and thereupon he enters a nol pros, as to several counts which gives as full information as a bill of particulars, the defendant can not complain of the refusal of the court to order a bill of particulars. Howard, 129–584.

An exception to a refusal of a continuance because of a pending appeal from a motion for a bill of particulars is without merit, since the appeal was premature. Dewey, 139-556.

An appeal from a refusal to order a bill of particulars is premature, the proper practice being to note an exception and have the matter reviewed on appeal from the final judgment. Dewey, 139-556,

The refusal to grant a bill of particulars is not appealable, except possibly in a case of gross abuse of discretion. Dewey, 139–556.

BIRDS' EGGS.

Sec. 83 (3464). Destroying nests or eggs of birds.

If any person shall take or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any wild birds, except those of the English or European housesparrow, owls, hawks, crows, blackbirds, jackdaws and rice birds, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and be fined one dollar for each nest or egg destroyed or taken, or be imprisoned not less than five nor more than ten days for each offense. This section shall not apply to any person taking eggs or nests for scientific purposes only, by authority of the Audubon Society of North Carolina. Code, s. 2836: 1903 (Pr.), c. 337, s. 4.

94 BLACKMAILING BLOODHOUNDS-BOARD OF CHARITIES.

BLACKMAILING.

Sec. 84 (3428). Blackmailing.

If any person shall knowingly send or deliver any letter or writing demanding of any person, with menaces, and without any reasonable or probable cause, any chattel, money, or valuable security; or if any person shall accuse, or threaten to accuse, or shall knowingly send or deliver any letter or writing, accusing or threatening to accuse any person of any crime punishable by law with death, or imprisonment in the state's prison, with a view or intent to extort or gain from such person any chattel, money, or valuable security, every such offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Code, s. 989; R. C., c. 34, s. 110.

If it is deducible by necessary implication from the whole tenor of the letter, that defendant threatened to indict the prosecutor for a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, with a view and intent to extort money, an indictment setting out the letter will not be quashed. Harper, 94-936.

BLOODHOUNDS.

In order to corroborate a witness who had turned state's witness evidence was introduced that a bloodhound was carried to the window of a store from which certain articles were stolen, where he smelt in a basket; that he was then carried inside where he smelt at the window and around the counters; that when he reached the meat-block he barked, and then went to the back door and smelt the steps, and went to the creek twenty feet away and barked and came back; then he trailed about the door and steps and up the street, going into divers places, and finally went up to one of the defendants and bayed him, and then trailed about and went up to another of defendants and bayed him: Held, that the evidence as to the conduct of the dog was incompetent, especially in view of the fact that there was no evidence to connect the circumstance of the baying of the two defendants, or either of them, with the making of the tracks at the time the larceny was committed, nor was there any evidence to show that the dog scented any.tracks then made by either of the defendants. Moore, 129–494.

Evidence that a bloodhound, well trained to track human beings and nothing else, and often used for the purpose, was put upon the tracks of the defendant and followed them until the defendant was "treed," is sufficient to go to the jury as corroborative. Hunter, 143-607.

BOARD OF CHARITIES.

Sec. 85 (3566). Board of charities furnished information.

If the board of commissioners of any county or the justices of the peace of any township, or any officer or employee of any charitable or penal institution of the state shall fail, refuse or neglect to furnish any information required by law to be furnished to the

board of public charities of North Carolina, when they have been provided with the necessary blank forms for such reports, or shall fail upon request to afford proper facilities for the examination of any charitable or penal institution of the state, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Code, s. 2341; 1891, c. 491, s. 2; 1869-70, c. 154, s. 3.

BOATS AND CANOES.

Sec. 86 (3544). Boats, tackle, etc., removing.

If any person shall take away from any landing or other place where the same shall be, or shall loose, unmoor, or turn adrift from the same, any boat, canoe, or pettiaugua, oars, paddles, sails and tackle belonging to or in the lawful custody of any person; or if any person shall direct the same to be done without the consent of the owner, or the person having the custody or possession of such boat, canoe, or pettiaugua, he shall forfeit and pay to such owner, or person having the custody and possession as aforesaid, the sum of two dollars, and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not exceeding fifty dollars or imprisoned not exceeding thirty days, in the discretion of the court. And the owner may also have his action for such injury. The penalties aforesaid shall not extend to any person who shall press any boat, canoe or pettiaugua by public authority.

Code, s. 2288; 1889, c. 378; R. C., c. 14, ss. 1, 3.

BREACH OF THE PEACE.

Where several persons go to the house of an aged widow and fire several guns, to her terror and dismay, they are guilty of a breach of the peace. Langford, 10 (3 Hawks), 381.

Riding unarmed through the court house, after court had adjourned and the crowd gone home, may or may not be a criminal offense according to circumstances, and such case ought to be left to the jury. Lanier, 71-288.

An indictment for acts amounting to a breach of the peace must set out the facts so as to show a breach of the peace and not merely a civil trespass. Hathcock, 29 (7 Ired.), 52.

BREAKING PRISON.

Sec. 87 (3657). Breaking prison.

If any person shall break prison, being lawfully confined therein, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Code, s. 1021; R. C., c. 34, s. 19; 1 Edw. II., st. 2d.