¶1Penal laws are to be construed strictly ; and no man ought to be subjected to a penalty imposed by statute, by con? struction or implication, unless it should appear to result necessarily. In this case the construction appears to be a reasonable and necessary one, which would bring the offence charged within the statute. In the case of the King v. Cook, 1 Lea. Ca. 123, the only doubt was, whether a heifer was within the protection of the act. I have no doubt that the statute meant to protect mares. The word “ horses” may fairly be construed to include mares, as nomen gene-rallissimum.
5 S.C.L. 9
State v. Dunnavant
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided December 15, 1811
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1811-12-15
Motion in arrest of judgment. The defendant was indicted and convicted upon the stat. 22 and 23 C. 2, c. 7, P. L. 80, for unlawfully and maliciously killing a mare, in' the night time. The motion in arrest of judgment was made in the Court of Sessions for the district of Union, Judge Waties presiding, who, being doubtful, reserved the case for the consideration of this court.
Decided 1811-12-15