possession any such thing for the purpose of sale, exhibition or circulation, or with intent to introduce it into any family or place of education, he shall be confined in jail not more than one year and fined not exceeding two hundred dollars. (Id. § 7.)

§ 12. If any free person shall commit the crime of buggery, either with mankind or with any brute animal, he shall

5 This is an offence of which there is very little knowledge in Virginia. It is otherwise in England. The offence is defined in this section as in the 4th report of the English Commissioners, p. 169, art. 25. Rep. Rev. C. V. p. 974, note.

The offence consists in a carnal knowledge committed against the order of nature, by man with man; or in the same unnatural manner with woman; or by man or woman in any manner with beast. I Hale 669; Com. v. Thomas, 1 Va. Cas. 307. An unnatural connection with an animal of the fowl kind is not sodomy; a fowl not coming under the term "beast ;" and it was agreed clearly not to be sodomy, when the fowl was so small that its private parts would not admit those of a man, and were torn away in the attempt. Rex v. Mulreaty, Hil. T. 1812, MS., Bayley, J.

With respect to the carnal knowledge necessary to constitute this offence it is the same as in rape, with a few exceptions; it being held, that to constitute the offence, the act must be in the part where sodomy is usually committed. The act in a child's mouth does not constitute that offence. Wharton's Am. Crim. Law, 4th edi. § 1161; 1 Russ. on Crimes 698.

This crime is consummated by penetration alone, without emission. Com. v. Thomas, 1 Va. Cas. 307; Rex v. Reekspeare, R. & M. C. C. R. 342; Rex v. Cozins, 6 C. & P. 351.

A party consenting to the commission of an offence of this kind, whether man or woman, is an accomplice, and requires confirmation. On the trial of an indictment for an unnatural offence by a man upon his own wife, she swore that she resisted as much as she could. Patterson, J. said: "There was a case of this kind which I had the misfortune to try, and it there appeared that the wife consented. If that had been so here, the prisoner must have been acquitted; for although consent or non-consent is not material to the offence, yet, as the wife, if she consented, would be an accomplice, she would require confirmation; and so it would be with a party consenting to an offence of this kind, whether man or woman." Rex. Jellyman, 8 C. & P. 604; 1 Russ. on Crimes 699.

When strictly and impartially proved, this offence well merits strict and impartial punishment; but it is from its nature so easily charged and the negative so difficult to be proved, that the accusation ought clearly to be made out. The evidence should be plain and satisfactory, in proportion as the crime is detestable, I Russ. on Crimes, 699; 4 Black. Com. 915.

be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than five years. (1 R. C. p. 586, ch. 159. Acts 1847-8, p. 112, § 11.)

Violation of sepulture; cruelty to animals; profanity, &c.

§ 13. If a free person, unlawfully, disinter or displace a dead human body, or any part of a dead human body, which shall have been deposited in any vault or other burial place, he shall be confined in jail not more than one year, and fined not exceeding five hundred dollars. (Acts 1847–8, p. 112, § 14.)

§ 14. If a free person cruelly beat or torture any horse, or other beast, whether his own or that of another, he shall be fined not exceeding fifty dollars. (Id. § 15.)

§ 15. If any person, arrived at the age of discretion, profanely curse or swear, or get drunk, he shall be fined, by a justice one dollar for each offence. (1 R. C. p. 554, § 1. Acts 1830-31, p. 108, eh. 40; 1847-8, p. 111, § 12; 1866, p. 84, § 15.)

§ 16. If a free person, on a Sabbath day, be found laboring at any trade or calling, or employ his apprentices, servants or slaves in labor or other business, except in household or other work of necessity or charity, he shall forfeit two dollars for each offence; every day any servant, apprentice or slave is so employed, constituting a distinct offence. (1 R. C. p. 555, § 5. Acts 1847-8, p. 112, § 16.)

§ 17. No forfeiture shall be incurred, under the preceding section, for the transportation on Sunday of the mail, or of passengers and their baggage. And the said forfeiture shall not be incurred by any person who conscientiously believes, that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as a Sabbath, and actually refrains from all secular business and labor on that day, provided he does not compel a slave, apprentice or servant, not of his belief, to do secular work or business on Sunday, and does not on that day disturb any other person. (C. V. 1860, p. 804, § 17.)

§ 18. If a free person, wilfully, interrupt or disturb any assembly met for the worship of God," he shall be confined, in jail not more than six months and fined not exceeding one hundred dollars, and a justice may put him under restraint during religious worship, and bind him, for not more than one year, to be of good behaviour. (1 R. C. p. 555, § 3, 4. Acts 1847-8, p. 112, § 13.)

• An indictment for disturbing a religious congregation, need not set out the means by which the disturbance and disquieting was effected. Com. v. Daniels, 2 Va. Cas. 402.

7 The statute is applicable not only to disturbances which are made whilst the religious services are progressing; but to disturbances made whilst the congregation is assembled for religious worship; though it be at night after the religious services are closed for the day, and the congregation has retired to rest. Com. v. Jennings, 3 Gratt. 624.

§ 1. All judges and justices may suppress riots, routs and unlawful assemblies' within their jurisdiction. And it shall

1 The distinction between these offences appears to be, that a riot is a tumultuous meeting of persons who actually execute some common purpose with violence; a rout is a similar meeting of persons who make a motion to execute a purpose which, if executed, would make them rioters; and an unlawful assembly is a mere assembly of persons upon a purpose which, if executed, would make them rioters, but which they do not execute, nor make any motion to execute, or an assembly which endangers the public peace. Davis' Crim. Law 251; 1 Russ. on Crimes 266; 1 Hawk. P. C. ch. 65, § 1, 8, 9; 3 Inst. 176; 4 Black. Com. 146; Mayo's Guide to Mag. 572.

As these offences cannot be committed by a less number than three, if the jury acquit all who are charged but two, and find them guilty, the verdict is repugnant and void, unless the indictment charges them with having committed the offence together with other persons unknown. Davis' Crim. Law 255; 2 Hawk. 621; Whart. Am. Cr. Law, 4th edi., § 2493.

There are no accessaries in a riot; all concerned in it are principals. 1 Hawk. ch. 65, § 3; 1 Hale 463; 1 Russ. 269. In riotous and tumultuous assemblies, all who are present and not actually assisting in their suppression, in the first instance, are, in presumption of law, participants; and the obligation is cast upon a person so circumstanced, in his defence, to prove his actual non-interference. Whart. Am. Crim. Law, 4th edi., § 2483. Women are punishable as rioters, but infants, under the age of discretion, are not. I Hawk. ch. 65, § 14; Deac. Cr. Co. 1115; 1 Russ. 272.

be the duty of each of them to go among, or as near as may be with safety to, persons riotously, tumultuously or unlawfully assembled, and in the name of the law command them to disperse; and if they shall not thereupon immediately and peaceably disperse, such judge or justice giving the command, and any other present, shall command the assistance of all persons present, and of the sheriff or sergeant of the county or corporation, with his posse if need be, in arresting and securing those so assembled. If any white person present, on being required to give his assistance or depart, fail to obey, he shall be deemed a rioter. (1 R. C. p. 556, ch. 142. Acts 1847-8, p. 109, ch. 7, § 1 to 7.)

§ 2. If a white person be arrested for a riot, rout or unlawful assembly, the judge or justice ordering the arrest, or any other justice, shall commit him to jail, unless he shall enter into recognizance, with sufficient security, to appear before the circuit court having jurisdiction of the offence, at its then next term, to answer therefor, and in the meantime to be of good behavior and keep the peace. (Id.)

A negro is one of the persons who, in contemplation of law, may, with white men, commit a riot. State v. Thackman, 1 Bay, 358; C. V. ch. 200, §8. The negro, however, in such case, must be a free agent, and not acting under his master's order. State v. Calder et al., 2 McCord 462; Whart. Am. Cr. Law, § 2492.

2 Independent of the statute, by the common law, the sheriff, constable, and other peace officers may, and ought to do all that in them lies towards suppressing a riot, and may command others to assist them, (1 Hawk. ch. 65; 2 Dick. J. P. 333;) who, if they refuse to assist, are indictable. And by the common law a private person may lawfully endeavor to suppress a riot, by staying those whom he shall see engaged therein, from executing their purpose, and may also stop others whom he shall see coming to join them. It is said that a private person, in the suppression of a riot, may arm himself and make use of arms if there be a necessity, either in defence of his own life and property, or to protect the lives and property of others, (1 Hawk. ch. 65, § 11; 2 Deac. Cr. Co. 1118; and 2 Bos, & P. 265;) and this upon the ground, that it is lawful for a private person to do any act to prevent a felony. But the necessity must be manifest to justify homicide under such circumstances. Mayo's Guide to Mag. 575-6,