¶1 after stating the facts: Time and place in a charge for an offence like this need not be proved as laid. It is sufficient if the time proven was at any time within two years prior to issuing the warrant, and it is enough if the offence is shown to have been committed within the county. Indeed, the offence, if proven, “shall be deemed and taken” as having been committed in the county laid in the charge, unless the defendant, by plea in abatement, under oath, shall allege the transaction took place in another county; whereupon, the case may be removed thither for trial. The Code, § 1194.
¶2 It was competent for the State to introduce testimony as to various transactions, each one constituting, if the evidence is believed, the offence. At the close of the evidence on both sides, or even at the close of the evidence for the State, the Court, in its discretion, may require the Solicitor to elect upon which transaction the State will ask for a verdict. State v. Parish, 104 N. C., 679, in which Avery, J., in a well-considered and careful opinion, reviews the authorities.
¶3 When the State is not required, at the close of its evidence, to elect one of the transactions put in evidence by its witnesses, it is competent for the Solicitor, upon cross-examination of defendant’s witnesses, to show any other transaction within the statute of limitations which would constitute the offence charged. The rule that the cross-examination is limited to the matters brought on the direct examination *807 has never prevailed in this country, either in civil or criminal actions, though it is otherwise in England.
¶4 The rule that it is competent to bring out such evidence upon cross-examination of defendant’s witnesses is not varied by. the fact that the defendant uses himself as a witness in his own behalf. He cannot be compelled to testify, and no inference to his detriment can be drawn from his failure to go upon the stand. The Code, § 1353. When he voluntarily does so he waives his constitutional privilege of not being required to give evidence tending to criminate himself, and, to impeach him and shake his evidence, can be asked questions as to other and distinct offences, like any other witness. Smith, O. J., in State v. Thomas, 98 N. C., 599. With stronger reason, the defendant, like any other witness introduced by him, may be required to give evidence tending to prove the very offence charged in the indictment or warrant. He has no more privilege than any other witness, and in telling “ the whole truth ” he is called upon to give evidence which may be against the defendant, as well as for him. It is his own fault here that he offered a witness who knew more about his transgressions of law on this charge than he after-wards found it to his interest for the jury to have information of.
¶5 Per Curiam. No error. .