¶1 The Court at first, thought that the decision of this case might be put upon the question of jurisdiction alone, and we were disposed to put the decision upon that ground, and thereby save the scandal that must and often does arise by the investigation of such cases in the Superior Courts; but upon a close examination of the wording of the statute, we think this cannot be done, as the act authorizes the infliction of both the *497 fine and imprisonment, and not merely a fine or imprisonment for one month, as prescribed in Article IY, Section 33, of the Constitution.
¶2 The words, wilful-abandonment, as used in the statute, include the act oí separation, and not merely its continuance; and as this abandonment took plaee before the passage of the statute tinder which the defendant is indicted, he cannot be convicted.
¶3 Justices of the Peace may entertain jurisdiction of this offenee under the .act of 1869, chapter 178, by observing the rules prescribed in section 6, of sub-chapter IY. of said act, and we think at the more appropriate jurisdiction.
¶4 Per Curiam. There is error.