(after stating the facts). 1. The first exception is to the refusal of his Honor to quash the indictment. There is no error in this. The indorsements on the bill form no part of the indictment, and it has been held that the Act of 1879, The Code, § 1742, requiring the foreman of the grand jury, when the oath is administered by him, to mark on the bill the names of the witnesses sworn and examined before the jury, is merely directory, and a non-compliance therewith is no ground for quashing the indictment. State v. Hines, 84 N. C., 810. It constitutes neither ground for a motion to quash nor in arrest of judgment. State v. Sheppard, 97 N. C., 401; State v. Baldwin, 1 D. & B., 195; State v. Roberts, 2 D. & B., 540; The Code, § 1183.
2. The second exception is to the jurisdiction of the Court. This is based upon a misapprehension as to the misdemeanor charged.
The penalties imposed by the Revenue Acts of 1887, (ch. 135, § 35,) are for violations of the revenue law, in practicing *538the trades or professions, or using the privileges taxed by that act, (among them dealing in liquors,) without first paying the tax and obtaining the license, and as these do not exceed fifty'- dollars fine, or imprisonment for more than thirty days, the Justice of the Peace has jurisdiction; but chapter 417, Acts of 1887, makes it unlawful for any person to “ sell any spirituous, vinous or malt liquors within two miles of * * * Mud Creek Baptist Church, * * * in Henderson County; ” it enacts further, that the “ person or persons so offending, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined and imprisoned, at the discretion of the Court.” This is the statute under which the' defendant is indicted, and the Court has jurisdiction.
3. The third exception is to the charge of his Honor, as to the effect of the vote of the town of Hendersonville, at the election in June, 1887, upon local option. If there were any doubt as to the correctness of his Honor’s charge, it is settled by the Local Option Act, under which the election was held, by which it is expressly provided, that the election shall not “ affect localities in which the sale of spirituous liquors are prohibited by law.” The Code, § 3116. “ Within two miles of Mud Creek Baptist Church,” is a locality within which the sale of spirituous liquors is “prohibited by law,” and it is therefore within the proviso of the Local Option Act, and there was no error in his Honor’s charge.
Affirmed.