¶1 The defendant excepts and assigns as error the refusal of ■the court below to allow his motion for a directed verdict of not guilty ias'to the felonious charge, and to the failure of the court to charge the .•jury that they could return a verdict of simple assault. These exceptions 'cannot be sustained.
¶2 The Contention of the appealing defendant that he never anticipated ''anything more than a fist fight is repugnant to the role he played in this ’Vibioús' assault on the prosecuting witness. If his contention were true, 'why'di’d he not take Winfield to a hospital as he was requested to do after Murchison shot him the first time ? He certainly knew at that time the . nature of' the assault Murchison intended to make on Winfield, but he ' Continued to aid and abet him in making a still further assault on him. The'defendant and Murchison had not only conspired to engage in an unlaful enterprise, but both were present aiding and abetting each other in the commission of the crime. This made Forshee guilty as a principal. S. v. Brooks, ante, 68, 44 S. E. (2d), 482; S. v. Williams, 225 N. C., 182, 33 S. E. (2d), 880; S. v. Smith, 221 N. C., 400, 20 S. E. (2d), 360; S. v. Triplett, 211 N. C., 105, 189 S. E., 123; S. v. Gosnell, 208 N. C., 401, 181 S. E., 323; S. v. Jarrell, 141 N. C., 722, 53 S. E., 127.
¶3*271 In the case of S. v. Gosnell, supra,, this Court -said: “The principle is . . . well established that without regard to any previous confederation or design, when two or more persons aid and abet each other in the com-, •mission of a crime, all being present, all are principals and equally guilty.” And in S. v. Smith, supra,, it is held: “The general rule is, that if a number of persons combine or conspire to commit a crime,, or to engage in an unlawful enterprise, each is responsible for all acts committed by the others in the execution of the common purpose which are a natural or probable consequence of the unlawful combination or undertaking, even though such acts are not intended or contemplated as a part of the original design. S. v. Williams, supra (216 N. C., 446, 5 S. E. (2d), 314); S. v. Lea, supra (203 N. C., 13, 164 S. E., 737); S. v. Stewart, 189 N. C., 340, 127 S. E., 260.”
¶4 The remaining assignments of error are without merit.
¶5 In the trial below we find
¶6 No error.