¶1 The various definitions and shades of meaning of aiding and abetting are contained in S. v. Hart, 186 N. C., 582. An approved definition of aiding and abetting is as follows: “In order for one to aid and abet the commission of a crime he must do something that will incite, encourage or assist the actual perpetrator in the commission of the crime. Mere presence, even with the intention of assisting in the commission of a crime, cannot be said to have incited, encouraged, or aided the perpetrator thereof, unless the intention to assist. was in some way communicated to him.- The law does not punish intent which is without influence on an act.” Another approved definition is.: “An abettor is one who gives aid and comfort, or who either commands, advises, instigates, or encourages another to commit a crime. A person who, by being present, by words or conduct, assists or incites another to commit a crime — a person who, by being present, by words or conduct, assists or incites another to commit the criminal act.” S. v. Jarrell, 141 N. C., 722; S. v. Cloninger, 149 N. C., 567; S. v. Hart, supra.
¶2 The facts and circumstances of this case warrant a submission of the question to the jury, and it was the province of the jury to weigh the evidence and to draw from it such reasonable inferences as the testimony justified.
¶3 Upon the entire record we find no error of law, and are, therefore, compelled to affirm the judgment.
¶4 No error.