Case Name: The State v. Dunnavant
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1811-12
Citations: 3 Brev. 9
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. Dunnavant.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 9–10

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
DEC. 1811.
The State v. Dunnavant.
The word “ horses” may fairly be construed to include mares, as nomen generalissimum.
Motion in arrest of judgment. The defendant was indicted and convicted upon the stat. 22 and 23 C. 2, c. 7, P. L. 80, for unlawfully and maliciously killing a mare, in' the night time. The motion in arrest of judgment was made in the Court of Sessions for the district of Union, Judge Waties presiding, who, being doubtful, reserved the case for the consideration of this court.
Note. “ Dorses, sheep, or other cattle.” These species of property are in-the plural number, yet the statute extends to one horse, as well as to two, or more. The words of it are, “ if ^ny person shall kill or destroy any horses, every such-offence shall be adjudged felony.” Seel Leach, C. L. 1. Mares may be properly included in the word “ cattle.” , See 2 East's C. L. 1076.
[The State v. Garey, Newberry, Fall Term, 1833, was decided in conformity to the case of the State v. Dunnavant.] — En.
The words of the statute are, “ If any person shall, in the nigfiü' time, maliciously, unlawfully, and willingly, kill or destroy any' horses, sheep, or other cattle, he shall be guilty of felony.” It was insisted, that this case was casus omissus.
Sed per curiam. It is within the statute, without any averment, that mares are within the statute. '

Opinion:
Brevard, J.
Penal laws are to be construed strictly ; and no man ought to be subjected to a penalty imposed by statute, by con? struction or implication, unless it should appear to result necessarily. In this case the construction appears to be a reasonable and necessary one, which would bring the offence charged within the statute. In the case of the King v. Cook, 1 Lea. Ca. 123, the only doubt was, whether a heifer was within the protection of the act. I have no doubt that the statute meant to protect mares. The word " horses" may fairly be construed to include mares, as nomen gene-rallissimum.