after stating the case: The bill of indictment charges the defendant with unlawfully carrying on the business of putting up lightning-rods in the county of Nash without having obtained license and paid the tax as required by *589law. There is also a count in the bill for unlawfully carrying on the business of selling lightning-rods under like circumstances. Both acts are made criminal offenses of the grade of misdemeanors by the State Eevenue Law in force at the time of the transaction, and on this bill of indictment there was a general verdict of guilty. It is well established that such a verdict on an indictment containing several counts charging offenses of the same grade and punishable alike, is a verdict of guilty on each and every count; and if the verdict on either count is free from valid objection, there being evidence tending to support it, the conviction and sentence for that offense will be xipheld. It was accordingly held for law in this State that: “When there is a general verdict of guilty on an indictment containing several counts, and only one sentence is imposed, if some of'the counts are defective the judgment will be supported by the good count; and, in like manner, if the verdict as to any of thé counts is subject to objection for admission of improper testimony or erroneous instruction, the sentence will be supported by the verdict on the other count, unless the error was such as might or could have affected the- verdict on them.” State v. Toole, 106 N. C., 736.
If it should be conceded, therefore, that a conviction on the second count for an unlawful sale could not be upheld by reason of the Interstate Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, this would in nowise invalidate a conviction on the first count, to-wit, for unlawfully carrying on the business of putting up lightning-rods in Nash County, which was, undoubtedly, a domestic or intrastate business. This was charged in the first count as a distinct and separate offense. There was ample evidence to support it, and the charge of the Court excepted to shows clearly that the conviction was had for this offense, and for this alone. In this aspect of the case the conviction of the defendant is sustained and controlled by the decision of this Court in State *590 v. Gorham, 115 N. C., 721, and we do not consider that further discussion or-citation of authority is required.
There is no error and the judgment of the Court below is affirmed.