majority"> Per Cueiam.

Tbe defendants were indicted and convicted of keeping a disorderly bouse. They appealed assigning certain grounds of error: (1) That tbe court refused their motion to dismiss tbe action as in tbe case of nonsuit; (2) that tbe court erroneously admitted evidence as to tbe general reputation of tbe bouse; (3) that tbe court committed error in tbe admission of evidence relating to occurrences on tbe premises which, it is contended, may have taken place more than two years preceding tbe finding of tbe bill of indictment; (4) that there was error in tbe admission and rejection of other evidence, and in tbe instructions given tbe jury.

Tbe evidence was amply sufficient to justify tbe court in submitting to tbe jury tbe question of tbe defendants’ guilt. C. S., 4347. This *781 statute authorizes the admission of evidence tending to show the lewd, dissolute, and boisterous conversation of the inmates and frequenters of the house, and specially provides that evidence of the general reputation or character of the house shall be admissible and competent.

If any of the occurrences referred to in the evidence happened more than two years prior to the finding of the bill of indictment as contended by the defendants, they were not for that reason incompetent. Some of the occurrences took place within the two-year period and evidence of those which happened prior to the bar of the statute of limitations would be competent ás corroborative. S. v. McDuffie, 107 N. C., 885; S. v. Guest, 100 N. C., 410. If the evidence was competent for any purpose it would have been erro;r to exclude it.

We have examined the record as to the admission and rejection of evidence and as to instructions given the jury and find no reversible error.

No error.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress