A statute defining a crime may contain an exception. This exception must sometimes be noticed in describing the offense in an indictment. If the exception is embodied in the same clause which defines the crime, then it is necessary to negative the exception in describing the offense in the indictment.60 But if the exception is not embraced in the same clause defining the offense, and in no manner connected with it by any words of reference, it need not be negatived, for in that case it is no part of the description of the offense as defined by the statute; it is a matter of defense. In such case if the accused contends that he comes within the exception he must present it in his defense.61 In stating an exception when required to do so in describing the offense, the pleader is not compelled to use the exact words of the proviso or exception; equivalent words are sufficient.62

68 Barton vs. State, 29 Ark., 68;

Brown vs. People, 173 Ill., 37;

Jackson vs. State, 34 Tex.

Cr., 90. 59 Lord vs. State, 20 N. H., 404;

Crocker vs. State, 47 Ala., 53;

People vs. Ball, 14 Cal., 101;

State vs. Rush, 95 Mo., 199. 60 Beasley vs. People, 89 Ill., 577;

Sokel vs. People, 212 Ill., 238-245; U. S. vs. Cook, 17 Wall. (U. S.), 168.

61 U. S. vs. Cook, 17 Wall. (U. S.), 168; Dryer vs. People, 188 Ill., 44; Sokel vs. People, 212 Ill., 238-245; State vs. Albany, 29 Vt., 66.

62 Beasley vs. People, 89 Ill., 577.