
    STATE v. H. G. BRIDGEMAN.
    (Filed 10 October, 1951.)
    Appeal by State of North Carolina from Bobbitt, J., at Regular August Term, 1951, of Yancey.
    Affirmed.
    Criminal accusation under bill of indictment in the Superior Court of Yancey County charging that the defendant “. . . did enter upon and hunt and trespass on the property leased by-Yancey Rod and Gun Club without written permission from the owner or Lessee, in violation of Public-Local Laws, 1933, Chapter 539.”
    Chapter 539 of the Public-Local Laws of, 1933 is entitled “An act to protect hunting and fishing, and timber reservations in Yancey County,” and provides:
    “Section 1. That it shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon any hunting and fishing or timber reservations in Yancey County, without a written permission from the owner, and any person violating the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars, nor more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned in the discretion of the court.”
    Upon the call of the case and before plea, the defendant moved the court to quash the bill of indictment for that it does not allege facts sufficient to constitute a violation of Chapter 539, Public-Local Laws of 1933, and for that the Act is unconstitutional.
    The court was of the opinion that the bill of indictment does not allege facts sufficient to constitute a criminal offense under Chapter 539 of the Public-Local Laws of 1933, and for that reason, and on that ground alone, allowed the defendant’s motion to quash the bill, and judgment was entered accordingly, from which the State appealed.
    
      Attorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Moody, and Charles G. Powell, Jr., Member of Staff, for the State, appellant.
    
    
      ~W. E. Anglin and Garrett D. Bailey for defendant, appellee.
    
   JoitNson, J.

The judgment quashing the bill of indictment will be upheld on authority of what is said in the companion case of S. v. Gibbs, ante, 259. The bills of indictment in the two cases are identical, except as to the named defendants.

Affirmed.  