(after stating the facts). The section of The Code under which the indictment was drawn is as follows:

“If any person shall wilfully overdrive, overload, wound, injure, torture, torment, deprive of necessary sustenance, or cruelly beat, or needlessly mutilate, or kill, or cause or procure to be overridden, overloaded, wounded, injured, tortured; tormented, or deprived of necessary sustenance, or to be cruelly beaten, needlessly mutilated, or killed, as aforesaid, any useful beast, fowl or animal, every such offender shall, for every such offence, be guilty of a misdemeanor.” The Code, §2482.

At the first blush we Avere doubtful AA'hether the indictment in this case could be sustained, because it does not folhrw the words of the statute; — but, upon consideration, we are of the opinion it is sufficient. The indictment charges the defendant with shooting the cow. Shooting is not mentioned in the statute, but the’ wounding of animals is forbidden, and 'the shooting necessarily includes wounding. In the State v. Lonon, 22 Miss., 449, it is said: “In criminal cases’the definition of wound is an injury tó the person by which the skin is broken.”

*787 We cannot well imagine a case of injury by shooting where the skin is not broken, and Archbold, in his work on Criminal Pleadings, lays down the doctrine to be: “ When a word not in the statute is substituted in the indictment for one that is, and the word thus substituted is equivalent ‘to the word used in the statute, or is of more extensive signification than it, the indictment will be sufficient.” See also State v. Stanton, 1 Ired., 424.

The defendant contended in the court below and in this Court, that the statute against injuring stock in an inclosure not surrounded by a lawful fence having been repealed by the 18th section of act of 1883, placing Greene county in a “no-fence” section, that he had a right to shoot the cow to prevent her from destroying his'crops, and the law against cruelty to animals, under which the indictment was drawn, and under which the defendant was tried, was not intended to apply to cases where persons injured stock to prevent their injuring crops, and was intended to apply only to wanton and useless cruelty to animals.

The defendant’s counsel is mistaken in his construction of the statute. As most of the injuries to animals occur in cases just like this, where they are shot, wounded or injured by persons upon whose crops they are found trespassing, it is fair to presume that this was one of the mischiefs intended to be prevented by the Legislature. It never was the law that a man might shoot and kill his neighbor’s horses and cows for a trespass upon his crops. The temptation to do so was guarded against by the law which required every man to keep up, around his cultivated grounds, a fence five feet high, which was supposed by the Legislature to be sufficient to keep out marauding stock; and when the Legislature, as in Greene county, abolished the requirement of a lawful fence, or, in other words, established the “ no-fence law,” it made provisions for guarding against the trespasses of stock, as in the Act of 1883, chap. 70, it declared that it shall not be lawful for any live stock to run at large in the counties of Lenoir and Greene. The second section of the act made it a misdemeanor for any one within the boundaries defined -in the act, wilfully to per *788 mit his stock to run at large — -and then by the fifth section of the act, it is made lawful for any person to take up any live stock running at large in the territory embraced in this act, and to impound thesame in the township where the stock is taken up, and then the act proceeds to prescribe the proceedings to be had after the stock is impounded.

These are the remedies prescribed by the Legislature for preventing stock from trespassing upon and destroying crops.

The owner of stock may be indicted every time he wilfully permits his stock to run at large, and when they are found running at large they may be impounded, whether wilfully or negligently permitted.

At common law no man had the right to be his own avenger by shooting any cattle that he might find destroying his crops or treading down his grass. If one found the beasts of a stranger wandering in his grounds damage feasant, that is, doing him hurt or damage by treading down his grass or the like, the law provided that he might distrain them till satisfaction was made for the injury he had sustained; in other words, that he might impound them, as is provided in the act of 1883. The Code, §2482.

There is no error. Let this be certified to the Superior Court of Greene county, to the end that the case may be proceeded with according to law.

No error. Affirmed.