The defendant was arrested on a warrant issued by a justice of the peace of New Hanover county upon the affidavit of Simon Williamson, a constable, in which he is charged with committing an assault upon the person of the prosecutor while in the execution of his official duties. On the trial, of the charge before the justice he ■was found guilty and adjudged to pay a fine of five dollars and costs, and appealed to the criminal court of New Hanover. The defendant there moved to quash the proceedings, and the motion being denied he pleaded not guilty. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty.
The motion.to quash was made on the ground that the act of Feb. 28th, 1879, acts of 1879, ch. 92, conferring jurisdiction on justices, modifies or affects the offence, and the warrant should have concluded against the statute; and for the further reason that the offence is not alleged to have been committed in New Hanover county. The motion to quash as well as its renewal in arrest of judgment for these assigned defects, were properly overruled.
Laws conferring, withdrawing or limiting jurisdiction do not enter into and become a constituent part of the offences to which they apply.
An assault and battery is an offence at common law, and though the absent words, if supplied, would not have vitiated the warrant, they were needless and superfluous.
The want of an averment of a proper and perfect venue is not fatal to a bill of indictment where much greater strict*542ness is required than in forms used before a justice, and still less should be deemed essential to the sufficiency of a warrant.
On the trial before the jury it was in evidence that the prosecutor had in his hands an order for the arrest of a certain person \£hom he believed to be in the bar room, or in the one adjoining in which many persons were engaged in dancing, of which rooms the defendant had control, and the precept was shown him ; that the prosecutor was thereupon ordered away and violently pushed out of the room by the defendant
No exception is taken to the evidence, nor does it appear whether the person mentioned in the order of arrest was in the dance-room, nor what reasons the prosecutor had for expecting to find him at the place. No exception is taken to the evidence nor to its sufficiency to authorize conviction, nor are any facts stated to excuse or justify the defendant in his forcible and summary expulsion of the officer, whose business was fully understood, from the premises. If any such existed it was the duty of the appellant to give them, in evidence and havp them set out in the record with his exception to the rulings of the court in reference thereto. This is not done and as no error to the defendant’s prejudice is shown, the judgment must be affirmed.
Per Curiam. No error.