tion thereof shall be imprisoned in the state prison not more than ten years nor less than two years, and fined in any sum not exceeding two thousand dollars.

[1881 S., p. 174. In force September 19, 1881.]

2066. (1982.) Rout.-79. If three or more persons shall meet together to do an unlawful act upon a common cause, and shall make advance toward the commission thereof, they shall be deemed guilty of a rout, and, upon conviction, shall be fined not exceeding one hundred dollars each, or they may be imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding sixty days.

2067. (1983.) Provocation.-80. Whoever by words, signs or gestures, provokes or attempts to provoke another, who has the present ability to do so, to commit an assault or assault and battery upon him, is guilty of criminal provocation, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding twenty dollars.

An indictment under this section is sufficient if it follows the language of the statute. Stuckmeyer v. State, 29 Ind. 20; Marshall v. State, 123 Ind. 128.

On a charge of an attempt to provoke an assault and battery, there may be a conviction of an attempt to provoke an assault. Marshall v. State, 123 Ind. 128.

2068. (1984.) Drawing dangerous weapon.-81. Whoever draws or threatens to use any pistol, dirk, knife, slung-shot, or any other deadly or dangerous weapon, already drawn upon any other person, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than one nor more than five hundred dollars, to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months: Provided, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to a person drawing or threatening to use such dangerous or deadly weapons in defense of his person or property, or in defense of those entitled to his protection by law.

An indictment under this section need not negative the exceptions contained in the proviso. State v. Maddox, 74 Ind. 105.

If in consequence of a violation of the provisions of this section death results, the offender will be guilty of manslaughter. Surber v. State, 99 Ind. 71.

A conviction for carrying a weapon concealed is no bar to a prosecution for drawing a weapon under this section. Davidson v. State, 99 Ind. 366.

2069. (1985.) Carrying dangerous weapon.-82. Every person, not being a traveler, who shall wear or carry any dirk, pistol, bowieknife, dagger, sword in cane, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon concealed, or who shall carry or wear any such weapon openly, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring his fellow-man, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars.

Statutes prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons are constitutional. State v. Mitchell, 3 Blkf. 229.

The indictment need not state that a pistol carried was loaded. State v. Duzan, 6 Blkf. 31.

An indictment for carrying concealed weapons is sufficient if it substantially follows the language of the statute. State v. Swope, 20 Ind. 106.

It need not be alleged that the weapon was carried with the intent or purpose of injuring any one when the charge is for carrying it concealed. State v. Judy, 60 Ind. 138. As to who is regarded as a traveler within the meaning of this section, see Burst v. State, 89 Ind. 133.

A mail carrier is a traveler within the meaning of this section. Lott v. State, 122 Ind. 393.

It is not incumbent on the state to prove that the defendant was not a traveler. Wiley v. State, 52 Ind. 516.

The proof must show that the weapon was concealed. Ridenour v. State, 65 Ind. 411; Smith v. State, 69 Ind. 140.

All persons not travellers who carry weapons concealed are liable under this section. Walls v. State, 7 Blkf. 572.

[1875, p. 59. In force August 24, 1875.]

2070. (1986.) Furnishing deadly weapon to minor.-1. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, barter, or give to any other person under the age of twenty-one years any pistol, dirk, or bowie-knife, slung-shot, knucks, or other deadly weapon that can be worn or carried concealed upon or about the person; or to sell, barter, or give to any person under the age of twenty-one years any cartridges manufactured and designed for use in a pistol.

2071. (1987.) Penalty.-2. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of the foregoing section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than five dollars nor more than fifty dollars.

As to the sufficiency of an indictment for the sale of weapons to a minor, see State v. Allen, 94 Ind. 441.

Persons who sell dangerous weapons to minors are liable for the damages resulting from the use thereof. Binford v. Johnson, 82 Ind. 426.

[Acts 1885, p. 194. In force July 18, 1885.]

2072. (E. S. 338.) Sale of dangerous toys prohibited.-1. It shall be unlawful for any firm, company or person within the state of Indiana to manufacture, sell, or expose for sale, or give away as a prize or reward, any toy pistol, or other device for the purpose of exploding caps or wafers containing fulminates or other explosive compounds, and persons so selling or offering to sell or give away such a toy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not less ten dollars nor more than fifty dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than ten nor more than twenty days.

Persons who sell dangerous toys to minors are liable for the damages resulting from the use thereof. Binford v. Johnson, 82 Ind. 426.

[Acts 1883, p. 107. In force June 5, 1883.

2073. (E. S. 342.) Pointing fire-arms.-1. It shall be unlawful for any person over the age of ten years, with or without malice, purposely to point or aim any pistol, gun, revolver, or other firearm, either loaded or empty, at or toward any other person, and any

person so offending shall be guilty of an unlawful act, and upon conviction shall be fined in any sum not less than one nor more than five hundred dollars.

It is unlawful to point a gun or other fire-arm at the door of a house in which there is another person, if done with an evil design. Lange v. State, 95 Ind. 114.

[1881 S., p. 174. In force September 19, 1881.]

2074. (1988.) Disturbing meetings.-83. Whoever, by any loud or unnecessary talking, hallooing, or by any threatening, abusive, profane, or obscene language, or violent actions, or by any other rude behavior, interrupts, molests, or disturbs any collection of any inhabitants of this state convened for the purpose of worship, or any agricultural fair or exhibition, or any person present thereat, or going to or returning therefrom; or who, in like manner, interrupts, molests, or disturbs any meeting of inhabitants of this state, met together for any lawful purpose,-shall be fined in any sum not more than fifty dollars nor less than five dollars. Sextons of churches, and officers of fairs, or other meetings contemplated in this section, are hereby authorized to arrest any persons so disturbing such public meetings.

An indictment in the same count may charge a disturbance of a meeting and the members thereof. The name of the society need not be stated. State v. Ringer, 6 Blkf. 109.

As to what is a sufficient statement in an indictment as to the manner of the disturb ance, see State v. Oskins, 28 Ind. 364; Kidder v. State, 58 Ind. 68.

It should be alleged in the indictment that the meeting was held for a lawful purpose, but the particular purpose need not be stated. State v. Zimmerman, 53 Ind. 360; Howard v. State, 87 Ind. 68.

It must be alleged and proven that the meeting was a collection of the inhabitants of this state. Cooper v. State, 75 Ind. 62.

When the charge is for disturbing a meeting, the persons disturbed need not be named, and if named, it is not necessary to prove that they were disturbed. Hull r. State, 120 Ind. 153.

The protection of the statute extends to meetings until an actual dispersion has taken place. State v. Lusk, 68 Ind. 264; State v. Snyder, 14 Ind. 429.

As to what particular acts are held to be a disturbance, see State v. Oskins, 28 Ind. 364; Kidder v. State, 58 Ind. 68; Hull v. State, 120 Ind. 153.

[1881 S., p. 174. In force September 19, 1881.]

2075. (1989.) Bigamy.-84. Whoever, being married, marries again, the former husband or wife being alive and the bond of matrimony still undissolved, and no legal presumption of death having arisen, is guilty of bigamy, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the state prison not exceeding five nor less than two years, or be fined not exceeding one thousand dollars, and be imprisoned in the county jail not less than three nor more than six months.

An indictment for bigamy need not aver the time and place of the first marriage, the person solemnizing the same, nor the maiden name of the first wife. Hutchins v. State, 28 Ind. 34.

In prosecutions for bigamy the former marriage may be proven by the admissions of the defendant. State v. Seals, 16 Ind. 352; Squire v. State, 46 Ind. 459.

Proof must be made beyond a reasonable doubt that a former husband or wife was living at the time of the alleged bigamous marriage. Squire v. State, 46 Ind. 459.

The marriage license and certificate of marriage indorsed thereon is competent evidence. Squire v. State, 46 Ind. 459.

If the accused had good reason to believe, and did actually believe, that at the time of the second marriage the former marriage had been set aside, he is not guilty of bigamy. Squire v. State, 46 Ind. 459.

2076. (1990.) Incest.-85. If any step-father shall have sexual intercourse with his step-daughter, knowing her to be such; or if any step-mother and her step-son shall have sexual intercourse together, having knowledge of their relationship; or if any parent shall have sexual intercourse with his or her child, knowing him or her to be such; or if any brother shall have sexual intercourse with his sister, he being over the age of sixteen years, and having knowledge of his relationship, he or she shall be deemed guilty of incest, and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned in the state prison not less than two nor more than five years, or may be imprisoned in the county jail not less than six nor more than twelve months.

(As amended, Acts 1891, p. 347.

In force March 7, 1891.)

The indictment must charge that the accused knew of the relationship between the parties. Williams v. State, 2 Ind. 439.

An indictment for incest between a step-mother and step-son must allege that each knew of the relationship existing between them. Baumer v. State, 49 Ind. 544. When the parties to the incestuous intercourse are both guilty under the law, the acquittal of one will be a discharge of the other. Baumer v. State, 49 Ind. 544. If a step-father has intercourse with his step-daughter, knowing her to be such, whether by force or otherwise, he is guilty of incest. Norton v. State, 106 Ind. 163. On a charge against a father for incest with his daughter, her character for chastity is not in issue. Kidwell v. State, 63 Ind. 384.

After proof of incestuous intercourse, proof of prior acts of indecent familiarity between the parties is admissible. State v. Markins, 95 Ind. 464; Lefforge v. State, 129 Ind. 551.

Subsequent acts of sexual intercourse to the one upon which the prosecution is based can not be proven. Lovell v. State, 12 Ind. 18.

Voluntary drunkenness will neither excuse nor palliate the crime of incest. Colee v. State, 75 Ind. 511.

Persons tried after the amendment of 1891 took effect could not be imprisoned in the state prison for more than five years. Lefforge v. State, 129 Ind. 551.

2077. (1991.) Adultery and fornication.-86. Whoever cohabits. with another in a state of adultery or fornication shall be fined in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, and imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding six months.

Adultery consists in a man having unlawful carnal intercourse with a married woState v. Pearce, 2 Blkf. 318; Hood v. State, 56 Ind. 263.

man.

Fornication consists of sexual intercourse between a man and an unmarried woman. Hood v. State, 56 Ind. 263.

Proof of occasional acts of adultery will not sustain a charge of cohabiting in a state of adultery. Wright v. State, 5 Blkf. 358; State v. Gartrell, 14 Ind. 280; Jackson v. State, 116 Ind. 464.

To cohabit in a state of adultery or fornication means a living together of the parties. Jackson v. State, 116 Ind. 464; State v. Chandler, 96 Ind. 591.

When a man lives and cohabits with an unmarried woman, the parties are guilty of fornication. Hood v. State, 56 Ind. 263; State v. Johnson, 69 Ind. 85.

The use of the word fornication in an indictment implies that the woman is unmarried. State v. Gooch, 7 Blkf. 468; State v. Stephens, 63 Ind. 542.

Adultery or fornication may be proven by circumstantial evidence. Jackson v. State, 116 Ind. 464.

The offense being a joint one, if one of the parties is acquitted, the other must be discharged. State v. Bain, 112 Ind. 335.

It is not necessary that the parties should hold themselves out as husband and wife in order to be guilty of fornication. Van Dolsen v. State, 1 App. 108.

2078. (1992.) Seduction.-87. Any male person who, under promise of marriage, shall have illicit carnal intercourse with any female of good repute for chastity, under the age of twenty-one years, shall be deemed guilty of seduction, and, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned in the state prison not more than five years nor less than one year, and fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding six months.

An indictment for seduction is not bad for alleging that the seduction was "by means of promise of marriage," instead of ""under a promise," etc. Stinehouse v. State, 47 Ind. 17; Callahan v. State, 63 Ind. 198.

To constitute a criminal seduction the intercourse must be induced by, and take place under, a promise of marriage. Phillips v. State, 108 Ind. 406.

The promise of marriage inducing the intercourse need not be a binding promise in order to constitute seduction. Callahan v. State, 63 Ind. 198.

When the punishment is imprisonment in the county jail a fine can not be added. Steel v. State, 26 Ind. 82.

There may be criminal seduction although the female may have been guilty of prior acts of illicit intercourse. Williams v. State, ex rel., 3 App. 350.

2079. (1993.) Enticing females to house of ill-fame.-88. Whoever entices or takes away any female of previous chaste character from wherever she may be to a house of ill-fame, or elsewhere, for the purpose of prostitution, shall be imprisoned in the state prison not more than five nor less two years, or may be imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding one year, and be fined not exceeding five hundred dol

lars.

See section 2241, Acts 1889, p. 363, section 2; Ell. Supp., section 628.