In disposing of this appeal we must guard against the natural tendency to ignore a familiar legal principle because the case *670 happens to exhibit a gross type of delinquency. The defendant’s conduct may have been immoral and indefensible; it may have been such as to make him amenable to other provisions of the criminal law; but these considerations should not obscure our vision or divert our minds from the single inquiry whether he should have been convicted upon the evidence offered by the State.

The object of our organic law is to secure the individual against the arbitrary exercise of powers unrestrained by established rules. In criminal prosecutions he is to be tried upon an indictment accurately describing the offense with which he is charged; he cannot lawfully be convicted unless the evidence adequately sustains every constituent element of the offense; and he cannot be haled to court for the commission of one crime and there convicted of another. S. v. Wilkerson, 164 N. C., 432, 444. These principles we must keep in mind in determining whether a right has been denied and a wrongful conviction obtained upon a total failure of essential evidence.

The statute upon which the indictment was drawn is set out in the statement of facts. It was enacted by the General Assembly in 1919 as one of a series of statutes providing- for the creation and organization of juvenile courts. Public Laws 1919, ch. 97. These several statutes compose Art. 2 in the chapter on Child Welfare. C. S., 5039, et seq. They were enacted as a whole; they deal with one subject; they are a unified body of law, interrelated and interdependent.

An analysis of this section and an examination of its relation to the other sections in Art. 2 may aid us in ascertaining what the Legislature intended. Under its terms two classes are subject to indictment: (1) the parent, guardian, or other person having the custody of the child; (2) under certain conditions, “any other person.” Either of those in the first class may be indicted (a) when he omits to exercise reasonable diligence in the care, protection, or control of such child, causing it to be adjudged delinquent, neglected, or in need of the care, protection or discipline of the State “as provided in this article” (Art. 2, supra); or (b) when he permits such child to associate with vicious, immoral or criminal persons, etc. The parent or guardian may be prosecuted for acts of omission, causing the child to be adjudged delinquent, etc., or for permitting certain enumerated acts of delinquency. But the latter part of the section includes both classes, and it is the only part which includes the defendant: the parent or guardian or any other person may be prosecuted when he knowingly or wilfully does any act to produce, promote, or contribute to the condition which caused such child to be adjudged delinquent, neglected, or in need of the care, protection or discipline of the State. Under this clause the defendant was not subject to indictment unless he had produced, promoted, or contributed to a *671 condition wbicb bad caused an adjudication o£ delinquency, or an adjudication of neglect, or an adjudication that the child was in need of the protection or discipline of the State. In our opinion the language of the statute forbids the interpretation that he was indictable if he had produced, promoted, or contributed to a condition which had caused her to be adjudged delinquent, or to be neglected, or to be in need of the care, etc., of the State. The words “to be adjudged” obviously apply to each of the conditions named, i. e., to be adjudged delinquent, or to be adjudged neglected, or to be adjudged in need. As to these respective conditions the clause is disjunctive for the reason that if the copulative “and” had been used it would be necessary to show an adjudication of deliquency and of need and of neglect.

It is apparent, then, that a judgment of delinquency must be given, but in what forum ? It requires no argument to prove that jurisdiction is absolutely necessary to a valid judgment. The court must have jurisdiction of the parties and jurisdiction of the cause of action embracing every question which its judgment or sentence assumes to decide. 33 C. J., 1072, sec. 34, 35, et seq. In the present case the Superior Court assumed to decide and to. adjudge that Elsie Pully was a delinquent child. It had no jurisdiction to do so. It was expressly deprived of this jurisdiction when the act of 1915 was repealed. Public Laws 1919, ch. 97, sec. 25. The juvenile courts have exclusive original jurisdiction of any case of a child under sixteen years of age who is delinquent or neglected. The function of the court is defined; its procedure is fixed by statute. Sessions are held; petitions are filed; process is issued directed to the child and its parents; the child is brought before the court and given a hearing. Thereupon “the court, if satisfied that the child is in need of the care, protection or discipline of the State, may so adjudicate, and may find the child to be delinquent, neglected, or in need of more suitable guardianship.” This is the adjudication referred to by section 5057. In this way the child is adjudged delinquent “as provided in this article.” This, it would seem, is the plain meaning of the statute. Not only does it point out .the particular method of adjudication; the last clause speaks of the adjudication as a fact accomplished; it refers to “the condition which caused such child to be adjudged delinquent’*— words signifying a judgment; and this is very much more than a mere finding by the jury. Can Elsie Pully’s status thus be determined in a criminal action to which she is not a party? Consider a concrete illustration. The defendant is on trial in the Superior Court. If the question of Elsie’s delinquency is to be determined in this forum, what is the situation? She comes into court as a witness; she goes out “adjudged” a delinquent — a fit subject to become a ward of the State; and *672 this without notice to her and without the formality of a hearing. This is not permissible; the law hears before it condemns and renders judgment only after trial.

In our opinion the interpretation we have given these statutes is the only one by which they can be harmonized. It is unwise so to interpret one statute as needlessly to destroy another. We prefer a construction which will preserve the integrity of the juvenile courts and neither impair their usefulness nor take away the exclusive original jurisdiction which the Legislature has given them.

The indictment charges the adjudication, but the evidence fails to disclose it, and for this reason the conviction cannot be sustained.

Error.