propel a boat after wild fowl to put them on the wing, or shoot them with rifle or shotgun from any boat while sailing, or shall place any sail, flag, or other device upon any land bordering on the water to frighten any wild fowl, or shall leave more than one stationary bush or blind standing in the water between the hours of dark and sunrise, or shall fail to anchor any decked boat or float-house, or house built over the water and used to live in for the purpose of fishing or hunting wild fowl, in shoal water not more than three hundred yards from the mainland on the west side of Currituck sound, or at some public landing on the east side between the north end of Church's island and the south end of Powell's point at dark, or shall at dark fail to go to some landing as aforesaid, or shall leave any landing or anchorage before sunrise in the morning for the purpose of hunting or fishing, or shall before sunrise put out any decoys of any kind, or nets, or shall continue to hunt or fish after dark, or shall, between the thirty-first day of March and the tenth day of November of any year, shoot or capture any wild fowl over decoys, or shall between the tenth day of November of any year and the thirty-first day of March of the next year on any Wednesday, Saturday or Sunday hunt, take, kill or capture any wild fowl, or on any of said days shall disturb or rout any raft of wild fowl unless the same be unavoidable in the usual course of navigation, or shall between the tenth day of November and the fifteenth day of February skiff or ring-shoot any boobies or ruddy duck, or shall between the thirty-first day of March and the tenth day of November ship out of the county any wild fowl, or shall sail or propel a boat on Sunday for the purpose of locating wild fowl, or if any hired or employed person shall sail or lay around anywhere near any citizen who may be gunning or fishing to damage his shooting or keep him from shooting, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. This section shall only apply to Currituck county.

1889, c. 59; 1889, c. 115; 1889, c. 126; 1893, c. 286; 1895, c. 299; 1897, c. 291; 1899, c. 245; 1903, c. 112; 1903, c. 136.

Sec. 456 (3475). Hunting wild fowl in Dare county without license.

If any non-resident shall hunt wild fowl in Dare county without having paid the license tax required by law, or if any person shall hunt wild fowl in said county in any manner not authorized by law, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

1897, c. 415; 1899, c. 133.

Sec. 457 (3476). Wild fowl in Dare county.

If any non-resident of this state shall shoot wild fowl from any boat or floating battery in the waters of that part of Dare

county which lies south of a line passing east and west through the extreme northern end of Roanoke island, unless within four miles of some club-house or lodge of which he is a member or guest, or from some licensed boat or battery from which nonresidents are by law authorized to shoot wild fowl, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

1899, c. 133, s. 2; 1901, c. 157.

Sec. 458 (3477). Wild fowl in Dare, New Hanover and Brunswick counties. If any person shall kill, for sale, any wild fowls in the waters of Dare, New Hanover or Brunswick counties between the tenth days of March and November of any year, or ship out of the state between said dates any wild fowl killed in the waters aforesaid, or if any non-resident shall in said counties, or in Currituck county, shoot any wild fowl from any blind, box or battery or float, not on land at the time, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and be fined not more than fifty dollars, or imprisoned not more than thirty days.

Code, s. 2840; 1889, c. 59.

Sec. 459 (3478). Wild fowl in Pamlico sound, Hyde county.

If any person shall shoot any wild fowl in the waters of Pamlico sound, in Hyde county, from any box, battery or float not on land at the time, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor: Provided, residents of the state may shoot from batteries not on land on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday of each week and on no other days.

1897, c. 484.

Sec. 460 (3463). Deer in Brunswick.

If any person shall kill by shooting or drowning or knocking in the head any deer while swimming in any waters of Brunswick county, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined not less than five nor more than twenty dollars.

1905, c. 413.

Sec. 461 (3462). Deer by firelight; evidence of accomplices.

If any person shall hunt for deer with a gun in the woods in the night time, by firelight, or shall kill or catch any wild deer while swimming streams or other bodies of water, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall pay a fine not exceeding fifty dollars, or be imprisoned not exceeding thirty days. When more persons than one are engaged in committing the offense of fire-hunting, any one may be compelled to give evidence against all others concerned; and the witness, upon giving

such information, shall be acquitted and held discharged from all penalties and pains to which he was subject by his participation in the offense. This section shall not apply to Currituck county. Code, ec. 1058, 1059; (R. C.), c. 34, ss. 95, 96; 1774, c. 103; 1784, c. 212, ss. 1, 3; 1801, c. 595; 1856-7, c. 24 1879, c. 92; 1905, c. 388.

IDEM SONANS.

Willis Fain and Willie Fanes come under the rule idem sonans, State v. Hare, 95-682; also Deadena and Diddena, State v. Patterson, 24-346; Susan and Susana, State v. Johnson, 67-55; William Michaels and William Michal, State v. Haun, 44-410; Anne and Anny, 12-514; Dulks & Helker and Helker & Duts, State v. Lane, 80-408; Major Vase and Major Vass, State v. Collins, 115–719. (See State v. Collins, 115-718 for instance from other states also.)

A name merely misspelled is nevertheless the same name, and names which sound alike are considered as identical under the rule idem sonans. -360.

Hays, 24

ILLEGAL VOTING.

See also ELECTIONS.

UNCOMMUNICATED OPINION OF JUDGES.-Where a person living in one county voluntarily votes in another, the unlawful purpose prima facie attaches to the fact and the fact that the judges of election discussed the question among themselves and decided that he had a right to cast such vote, such discussion not being heard by defendant, nor the opinion communicated to him, can not take away the criminality of the act. Hart, 51 (6 Jones), 389.

DECISION OF JUDGES IN FAVOR OF VOTER.-The decision of the judges of election that a person is entitled to vote is a complete defense to an indictment for illegal voting, although such person may not in fact be entitled to vote. Distinguishing State v. Boyett, 10 Ired., and State v. Hart, 6 Jones, 389. Pearson, 97-434.

ADVICE NO EXCUSE.-On indictment for knowingly and fraudulently voting at an election, it is no excuse to show that defendant was advised by a very respectable gentleman that he had a right to vote, since "ignorance of the law excuses no man." Boyett, 32 (10 Ired.), 336.

IRREGULAR ELECTION NO DEFENSE.-One who votes illegally can not defend himself against an indictment on the ground that the election was conducted irregularly. Cahoon, 34 (12 Ired.), 178.

IMPEACHING WITNESS.

If a statement be made by the solicitor in open court upon the authority of a witness who is present, and the witness makes no objection to the facts as stated, and afterwards the witness testifies differently, he may be impeached by showing the statement made in his presence by the solicitor. McQueen, 46-178.

An affidavit made by a witness in the presence of the prisoner's wife who said it was correct, is admissible to corroborate the witness and to contradict the wife who had testified for her husband. Exum, 138-600.

Whenever the credit of a witness is impeached, whether by proof of general bad character, or by contradictory statements by himself, or by cross-examination tending to impeach his veracity or memory, or at times by his very position in reference to the cause and its parties, it may be restored or strengthened by any proper evidence tending to restore confidence in his veracity and in the truthfulness of his testimony, whether such evidence appears in a verbal or written statement, verified or not, or whether the previous statements were made ante litem motam or pending the controversy. Exum, 138–601.

Where the wife testified as an eye-witness to the homicide, contradicting the State's testimony and tending to support her husband's claim that the killing was in self-defense, her declaration, "O, little did I think I would have married a murderer in my own family," was competent as impeaching evidence. Exum, 138-600.

A witness may be impeached by a confession or declaration made before trial, though made under improper influences. Mills, 91-581.

Particular acts of immorality can not be shown. Garland, 95-671. Declarations showing ill-will against party against whom witness testifies can not be shown without first giving the witness an opportunity to explain or deny. Dickerson, 98-708.

A witness may be discredited by imputations directed against him on the cross-examination, by the circumstances surrounding him, or by the very nature of his testimony, as well as by direct evidence attacking his credibility. Whitfield, 92-831.

A witness may be asked on cross-examination whether many facts relative to the case are not slipping from his memory for the purpose of showing that his memory is weakening. Hall, 132-1094.

A witness may be impeached by showing a different statement made by him out of court, and a party may thus discredit his own witness. Norris, 2—429. A witness called to discredit another can not give his own opinion as to witness sought to be impeached. Boswell, 13-209.

But he may give the general character of the one impeached for truth when on oath and when not. Dove, 32-469.

Where the solicitor, in arguing a motion for continuance, makes a statement as upon the authority of a witness for the state, and such witness afterwards testifies differently, it is competent for the defendant to show the statements of the solicitor. McQueen, 46-177.

A witness called to impeach another may himself be impeached. 63-493.

Cherry,

Character of witness two or three years before the trial may be shown Lanier, 79-622.

When the matter is collateral witness must be asked as to time and place. Barber, 89-523.

Where a witness is asked about a conversation that would tend to show the temper or bias of the witness and denies it, such witness may be contradicted by proving the conversation, though the time was not the same time as that stated to the witness. Crook, 133-672.

IMPEACHING VERDICT.

MISCONDUCT OF JUROR.-Where jurors purchased and drank whiskey and "some of them were under its influence" while deliberating on their verdict, the verdict returned by the jury was void, and a mistrial should have been granted to the defendant. Jenkins, 116-972.

380

IMPEACHING VERDICT-IMPOUNDING ANIMALS.

NO APPEAL WHEN FACTS FOUND.-Where the trial judge finds the facts in regard to the alleged misconduct of the jury his refusal of a new trial on that ground is not reviewable. Fuller, 114-885.

The supreme court will not look into affidavits in support of a motion to set aside a verdict on account of the misconduct of the jurors, but will look only to the record presented, and when such motion is designed to be submitted to their revision, the facts must be ascertained by the court and spread upon the record. Smallwood, 78-560.

A juror can not be examined as a witness to impeach the verdict of the jury of which he was a member. Brittain, 89-481.

IMPOUNDING ANIMALS.

Sec. 462 (3311). Impounded, to be fed and watered.

If any person shall impound, or cause to be impounded in any pound or other place, any animal, and shall fail to supply to the same during such confinement a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water, 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.

Code, s. 2484; 1891, c. 65; 1881, c. 368, s. 3.

Sec. 463 (3312). Impounder misappropriating money.

If any impounder willfully misappropriates money that he may receive from sale of stock impounded, or in any manner willfully violates any provisions of the law in regard thereto, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days. Code, s. 2818; 1889, c. 504.

Sec. 464 (3302). Conveying in cruel manner.

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; and 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.

Code, s. 2486; 1891, c. 65; 1881, c. 368, s. 5.