
    THE STATE vs. PETER BROWN.
    It i? n.*t a ground for arresting judgment that the two offences, of parmit-ting a slave to.go at large as a free person, and of permitting him to keep house as a free person, are joined in the same count of an indictment.
    If a -lave living in a house to himself, keeps a hoarding house for his own livelihood, and.the master knowing it, exercises no control over him or his Intfiness, this is an nff'Mico within the 10?th chapter, 29th sec. of the Revised Code.
    The cases of the. State oí. Dark worth,'"1 Winst >n’s Rep., 24.8,and State vs. Allan, 4 Hawk’s, 25.0, cited and approved.
    This was im indictment against the defendant for per-, mitting his slave to go at large as a free person, and for permitting him to keep bouse as a free person, exercising bis own discretion in the employment of his .«time. 'Both offences were' 'charged in one Court. The trial was before Hhaxii, J., at Mecklenburg Superior Court, Fall Term, 1884.
    It. was in evidence that the .defendant was the owner of the slave, who is 65 or 70 years dd : that she lived on a lot in the town oí Charlotte, fcwtf hundre. yards from where the defendant lived, who.was frequently on the lot where she lived, Jre'having atan vard on the lot, and being engaged in working at that business : that she kept a boarding house for soldiers and other -white persons, and was frequently seen in the market and in the stores, buying supplies for her household ; that .when-the defendant was remonstrated with, by a policeman of- the town, for permitting her to go at large and live in this manner, he said that she was old and unable to-work, and was of little value to him while he had her, and that he permitted her to work her own way.-
    The Judge charged the jury that if they believed, from the evidence, that the defendant knowingly permitted the slave to go at large as a free person, exercising her own discretion in the employment of her time, or if he knowingly permitted her to keep house to herself as a free person, exercising her own discretion in the employment of her time, he was guilty ; but if the slave lived ■ or kept house in the house mentioned, for the purpose of attending to the business of her master, he was not guilty. * •
    The jury found the defendant guilty, and from the judgment on the verdict the defendant appealed. '
    Attorney General for the State.
    No counsel for the defendant in this Cotlrt.
   Batile, J.

We are unable to discover any error committed by the Judge in the. trial of the case in the Court below. The facts stated by the witnesses, if believed, certainly brought the case within the prohibition of the act under which he is indicted.

The testimony was fairly' submitted to the jury in the charge of the Court, and- with the result the defendant must be content. * See State vs. Duckworth, 1 Winston’s Rep., 243.

There is no ground upon which the motion to arrest the judgment can be sustained. The offences of tho owner of a slave, permitting him or her to go at large as a free person,- and to beep house as a free person, are of a cognate character,-and there can be no more objection to their being included in -the sainé count of an indictment, than there is for joining, in the same count, th# charge of an affray, and that of a mutual assault and battery.

At' all events, the objection ought to have been taken upon a motion to quash the indictment, and cannot be made available upon a motion in arrest of judgment. See Arch. Cr. Pl., 53, State vs. Allen, 4 Hawks, 356.

There is no error in the judgment, and it must besó, certified to the Superior Court.  