¶1 We concur with his Honor in the opinion that the facts found by the special verdict do not constitute a violation of section 2592 of The Code, which makes it a misdemeanor to wilfully' interrupt or disturb any public school. The act of the defendant may have prevented the coming together of the school, meaning thereby an assemblage of pupils and teachers, but it cannot be said that it interrupted or disturbed such an assemblage. The statute was contrived to put the schools of the State under the protection awarded by law to religious assemblages, and the principles that govern the prosecution of persons charged with disturbing religious meetings (State v. Jacobs, 103 N. C., 397) must control this. There was no formal verdict of not guilty in accordance with the opinion of the Court, as seems to be required by the ruling in State v. Moore, 107 N. C., 770, and State v. Monger, ibid., 771. This is not necessary since the decision in State v. Ewing, 108 N. C, 775, which has established what is the better practice.
¶2 No Error.