(after stating the facts.) The record shows that defendant asked that all instructions be reduced to writing. The court stated that the official stenographer was present, and would take the part of the instructions that were given orally, to which appellant excepted.' This exception was not carried into the motion for a new trial, and therefore we must treat it as abandoned. 1 Crawford’s Digest, Appeal & Error, IV, b.
Moreover, the instructions which were given orally are set out in the record. They relate to reasonable doubt and the credibility of witnesses, and were correct declarations of law.
It is contended that the testimony of Bartlett and Hill should have been excluded from the jury, for the reason that it tends to show that, if appellant was guilty, his guilt was that of an accessory, whereas the indictment charged him as principal. It was contended therefore that there was a variance between the charge ánd the proof. Appellant asked instruction numbered 1*, intended to convey the idea that if appellant sent the medicine by another, who knew of the prosecutrix’s condition, and knew what the medicine was for, and that appellant was not present when the medicine was delivered or taken, appellant would not be guilty under this indictment. The court properly admitted the testimony of Hill and Bartlett and the testimony showing that these parties delivered medicine to prosecutrix, which was sent to her by appellant. This, in connection .with the testimony of the prosecutrix showing that appellant had given directions about *457taking the medicine, and what it was for, tended to establish charge of “administering” or “prescribing,” as laid in the indictment. The Century Dictionary defines “prescribe“3. Specifically, to advise, appoint, or designate as a remedy for disease.” “To give medical directions, designate the remedies to be used; as, to prescribe for a patient in a fever.” Webster defines “prescribe:” “3. (Med.) To write or give medical directions; to indicate remedies; as to prescribe for a patient in a fever.” In Indiana the statute says: “Whoever prescribes or administers to any pregnant woman any drug, medicine, or substance whatever,” etc. The Supreme Court said: “The word ‘administer’ in said section does not signify merely the manual administering of the drug, medicine, or substance, but it has a much wider meaning. Among the definitions of said word are the following: ‘To furnish, to give, to administer medicine, to direct and cause it to be taken.’' (Webster’s Dictionary.) ‘To supply, furnish, or provide with.’ (Standard Dictionary.) As used in said section, the word administer was clearly intended to cover the whole ground named, making it an offense to give, furnish, supply, provide with, or cause to be given, furnished, supplied, or provided with or taken any such drug, medicine, or substance, with the intent named in said section. And said word embraced and was intended to embrace every mode of giving, furnishing,.supplying, providing with, or causing to be taken, any such drug, medicine, or substance. This is both the letter an'd spirit of the section.” McCaughey v. State, 156 Ind. 41. So say we.
The well-known meaning of these words, as given by any of the standard lexicographers, shows that the presence of the defendant in person at the time the medicine is delivered to or taken by the prosecutrix is not necessarily' contemplated. • The conduct of the appellant in sending medicine used to bring about abortion to the prosecutrix to be taken by her, and his direction to her in person or by letter as to how to take it, come clearly within the meaning of the words “administer” or “prescribe” as used in the statute. There was no error in refusing appellant’s request numbered 1 for instruction.
The charge of the court as set forth in instructions 1, 2, 3 and 4, and in instruction numbered 5 given at the request of the defendant,* correctly declares the law of the case applicable to the facts as .developed on both sides at the trial.
*458We find no error in granting or refusing requests for instructions.
The remarks of counsel for the State in referring to certain matters that were not in evidence 'were exceedingly improper. The court should not have permitted them, and we should not hesitate to reverse on account of these remarks if appellant’s guilt upon the undisputed facts were'not so clearly established; but in this view the remarks were not prejudicial.
Affirm.