The appellant’s case on appeal, with the exceptions filed thereto, was handed to the Judge, who failed to settle the case within sixty days after the Courts of the district had closed. The appellant now asks that his statement of case on appeal should be taken instead of the "case” as since settled by the Judge, insisting that the Judge, being liable to a penalty for the delay, cannot “settle ” the case. It is sufficient to say, that though The Code, § 550, on the failure of the Judge to settle the case in the prescribed time, permits an action against him for a penalty of $500 (if, indeed, he is liable at all in this case, as to which we express no opinion), that does not subject the appellee to lose his right to have the “case settled” by the Judge upon disagreement. The appellant further insists that the Judge should have given him notice of time and place of settling the case. But it does not appear that he “ requested ” this when sending the case to the Judge, as required by the statute, nor after-wards. A case exactly in point is Walker v. Scott, 106 N. C., 56.

It is not seen how the inadvertence of the Judge in referring to the action as an “ indictment ” prejudiced the defendant, but if it could have had that effect, the error was cured by the Judge correcting it in his charge. State v. McNair, 93 N. C., 628.

The charge that if the oral testimony offered by the prosecution and the defendant, taken together, “ left the minds of the jury in doubt, then the presumption raised by the written examination' (of the woman) would not be rebutted and the defendant would be guilty,” is correct. State v. Rogers, 79 N. C., 609; The Code, § 32.

Affirmed.