¶1 The special verdict found in this case is defective, and the facts found by the jury are not sufficient to warrant any judgment .thereon. The judgment therefore. *809 pronounced by the court that the defendant was not guilty is .erroneous.
¶2 In judging upon a special verdict the court is confined to. the facts expressly found, and cannot supply the want thereof as to any material part, by an agreement or implication from what is expressly found. And when the facts are of an equivocal character which may mean one thing or another, the court cannot determine as a question of law the guilt or innocence of the defendant. 2 Hawkins P. C., 622; State v. Curtis, 71 N. C., 56.
¶3 The verdict simply finds that the representation made by the defendant that he had chipped a “crop, of boxes was false,” but does not find the intent with which the statement was made. That was a material inquiry and a question of-fact that should have been found by the jury. The intent to cheat and defraud the prosecutor is an essential ingredient in the crime of false pretence. The verdict should have found that fact distinctly, the one way or the other ; either that defendant made the false representation with intent to cheat, or that he made the statement under an honest conviction of its truth. If it had done so, then the judge could have pronounced judgment of guilty or not guilty according to the finding. “A special verdict is in itself a verdict of guilty or not guilty as the facts found in it do or do not constitute in law the offence charged. There is nothing to do but to' write a judgment thereon for or against the accused.” State v. Moore, 7 Ired., 228. Therefore in finding a special verdict the facts should be stated fully and explicitly, and the omission of any fact necessary to constitute the offence is fatal. The practice is, when the verdict is insufficient, insensible, or in violent antagonism to the evidence, to set it aside and grant a new trial. 3 Whar. Cr. L., § 3188; State v. Curtis, supra; State v. Wallace, 3 Ired., 195; State v. Loury, 74 N. C., 121.
¶4*810 There is error. Let this be certified to the superior court of Cumberland county that a venire de novo may be awarded.
¶5 Error, Venire de novo.