(after stating the facts). We think the instructions of the Court given to the jury were proper, reasonable and just. The statute (The Code, §1003) violated provides, that, “ If any person shall wilfully and unlawfully kill or abuse any horse, mule, hog, sheep or other cattle, the property of another, in any enclosure not surrounded by a lawful fence, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined or imprisoned at the discretion of the Court: Provided, that this section shall not apply to any county or territory where the stock law prevails.” Its obvious purpose is to prohibit and prevent every person from unlawfully and *509wilfully killing and abusing live stock not bis own, but that of another, that may get into, and trespass upon enclosures-not surrounded and protected by a lawful fence, while so trespassing. This is the mischief to be suppressed. This purpose would not be accomplished in this and like cases, if the statute should be so narrowly construed as to mean that no offence is committed, unless the abuse complained of should be consummated inside of the enclosure.
If the attack resulting in abuse and injury, is begun inside and completed just outside, then no offence is committed! So narrow an interpretation cannot be allowed, if one more in harmony with the reason and purpose of the statute can be adopted. Criminal and penal statutes, as well as others, must receive such reasonable construction as will effectuate their purpose when this appears.
The defendant’s enclosure was not surrounded by a lawful fence. He was, therefore, in default, and being so, when the cow of the prosecutrix got into his field, he should have gently driven her out of it without abusing or injuring her. This he did not do, but on the contrary set his dogs at her, and they chased her through the field, and bit her legs ; she ran out into the road, where the dogs still pursuing her, bit her ear badly, and the defendant took off the largest dog that was biting her on the leg, which was injured.
It was a violation of the letter of the statute to thus set three dogs upon, chase and harrass the cow inside of the enclosure, but if there could be any doubt as to this, surely to chase her through and out of the field, and just outside of the fence, let the dogs bite, worry, injure and abuse her as described by the evidence, was a violation of the reasonable and just meaning of it. Such abuse of the cow was the result of one continuous attack upon her, begun inside and completed just outside of the enclosure, and the attack was made because she got inside of the field not surrounded by *510.a lawful fence. The purpose of this statute is to prevent such abuse in such case, in the absence of a lawful fence.
If the cow had been driven gently from the field, and then, •outside of it she had been abused, the case would be dif-orent.
There is no error. Let this opinion be certified to the Superior Court according to law. It is so ordered.
No error. Affirmed.