¶1 Tbe sole question presented by defendant’s exception to tbe refusal of bis Honor to direct a verdict of not guilty, is whether the daughter of defendant’s half sister comes within the language of' the . statute.. Section 3351 defines incest to be carnal intercourse between grandparent and grandchild, parent and child, brother and sister of the half or whole blo.od. Section 3352 defines the crime to be such intercourse between uncle and niece, nephew and aunt. Eor obvious reasons, nothing is 'said of the half or whole blood, The relation of uncle and niece must of necessity be of the half blood, as -in all other relations of consanguinity, other than those defined in the preceding section. As here, the daughter of defendant’s sister is of course related to him only by the half blood. The fact that the mother of the gii*l is only half sister of defendant can not affect the case. To have had such intercourse with her nfother — his half sister— would have been incést. The exact question seems to have been decided in State v. Reedy, 44 Kan., 190, and Shelby v. State, 95 Tenn., 152; State v. Wyman, 59 Vt., 527. We think that defendant and his niece, the daughter of the half sister are clearly within the statute. There was no error in his Honor’s refusal to give the instruction asked. It must be so certified.
¶2 No error.