¶1 Clearly the Court had jurisdiction. The indictment charges an assault with a deadly weapon, describing it, and that serious injury was done. The evidence certainly tended to prove that the assault was made with a deadly weapon, and that serious damage was done, but if it had turned out that the evidence only proved a simple assault, the Superior Court would, nevertheless, have jurisdiction, might receive a verdict of “guilty,” and proceed to judgment, as it did do. This is so, because that Court has general jurisdiction of assaults, assaults and batteries, and *767 affrays, and, having gained jurisdiction in a particular case, it will continue to hold and exercise the same until it shall be disposed of in the course of procedure. This is settled. The Code, § 892; State v. Reaves, 85 N. C., 553; State v. Ray, 89 N. C., 587; State v. Huntley, 91 N. C., 617; State v. Shelly, 98 N. C., 673; State v. Earnest, id., 740; State v. Phillips, 104 N. C., 786.
¶2 And so, also, if a simple assáult had been charged, this would have apparently given the Superior Court jurisdiction, 'and the burden would have been on the defendant to show that twelve months (Acts 1889, ch. 504) had not elapsed since the offence was committed, and next before the Superior Court took- jurisdiction. State v. Earnest, supra, and the cases there cited. 1
¶3 It must be conceded that the prosecutrix behaved badly, and greatly provoked and annoyed the defendant and distressed his sick wife; but she was in prison, and helpless.. While the jailer (the defendant) had the right to subdue her outbreak and keep her in subordination by reasonable and proper means, he liad not the shadow of right to gratify his feelings of revenge or to inflict upon her such a cruel and terrible beating with a horse-whip. We cannot hesitate to say that the injury inflicted was serious, and that the fine imposed was clearly within the discretion of the Court. State v. Miller, 94 N. C., 902, 904.
¶4 ■Affirmed.