¶1 The defendant was charged with peddling without a license as required by law. There was a special verdict, and this does not find whether or not the defendant had such license. Nor does it find that he was required to exhibit one bjr the proper authorities and failed to do so; in *764 which case there would have been a presumption that he had none. Section 24, chap. 216, Acts 1889.
¶2 The verdict being thus fatally defective, there must be a new trial. State v. Oakley, 103 N. C., 409; State v. Bray, 89 N. C., 480.
¶3 Error.