Madell Williams died in a hospital in the city of Rocky Mount, N. 0., on 1 July, 1936.
At the trial of this action there was evidence for the State tending to show that her death was the result of peritonitis caused by a criminal abortion, which was committed some time between 12 o’clock noon on Sunday, 7 June, 1936, and the early morning of Monday, 8 June, 1936.
There was evidence for the State further tending to show that the deceased, Madell Williams, left her mother’s home in Nash County about 12 o’clock noon on Sunday, 7 June, 1936, in an automobile with the defendant Melton Baker, who had called for her there; that at the time she left her mother’s home, with the defendant, the deceased was apparently in good health; that when she returned to her mother’s home with the defendant, early Monday morning, she was in bad physical condition, and immediately went to bed; and that she remained in bed for about a week, at her mother’s home, and then, upon the advice of a physician, was taken to the hospital at Rocky Mount, where she remained until her death.
*235Tbe evidence for tbe State further tended to sbow tbat on tbe day after tbe deceased was taken to tbe hospital, her mother went to see tbe defendant, who lived a short distance from her home, and who bad been visiting tbe deceased for about 18 months prior to her death; tbat at tbe request of tbe mother of tbe deceased, tbe defendant went at once to tbe hospital in Eocky Mount, and there saw and talked with tbe deceased ; and tbat tbe defendant agreed to pay and did pay for tbe medical service and hospital expenses rendered to and incurred by tbe deceased.
Tbe defendant denied tbat be bad advised or procured tbe commission of an abortion upon tbe deceased, or tbat be was responsible for her condition. He admitted tbat be bad visited tbe deceased frequently prior to her illness, and testified tbat bis relations with her were at least friendly. He further admitted tbat be paid her bill for medical services and hospital expenses, and testified tbat be did so because of bis friendship for her and her mother.
Evidence for tbe defendant tended to show tbat be did not take tbe deceased from her mother’s home, in an automobile, on Sunday, 7 June, 1936, and tbat be was not with her at any time during said day away from her mother’s home.
Tbe evidence for tbe State was sufficient to sbow facts from which tbe jury could reasonably infer tbat tbe defendant willfully and feloniously advised and procured tbe commission of a criminal abortion upon Madell Williams, and was for tbat reason properly submitted, together with tbe evidence for tbe defendant, to tbe jury. There was no error in tbe refusal of tbe trial court to allow defendant’s motion at tbe close of all tbe evidence for judgment as of nonsuit.
In S. v. McLeod, 198 N. C., 649, 152 S. E., 895, it is said: “Tbe general rule is, tbat if there is any evidence tending to prove tbe fact in issue, or wbieb reasonably conduces to its conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction, and not merely'such as raises a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it, tbe case should be submitted to tbe jury; otherwise not, for short of this, tbe judge should direct a nonsuit, or an acquittal on a criminal prosecution. S. v. Vinson, 63 N. C., 335. Eut if tbe evidence warrant a reasonable inference of tbe fact in issue, it is for tbe jury to say whether they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of such fact, tbe fact of guilt. S. v. Blackwelder, 182 N. C., 899, 109 S. E., 644.”
A careful examination of tbe record in this appeal fails to disclose any error in tbe trial.
If, as contended by tbe defendant, tbe judge, in response to questions of jurors, inadvertently misstated the testimony of certain witnesses for tbe State, tbe defendant should have called such misstatement to tbe attention of tbe judge, before the jury retired. . In such case, tbe judge *236would bave bad an opportunity to correct bis alleged misstatement. A defendant cannot rely upon a general exception to an inadvertent misstatement by tbe judge of tbe testimony of a witness where, as in tbe instant case, tbe ground for sucb exception was not brought to tbe attention of tbe judge before tbe case was submitted to tbe jury. See S. v. Sterling, 200 N. C., 18, 156 S. E., 96.
Tbe judgment is affirmed.
BaRNHIll, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of this case.