The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1861-10-25
DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT.
OCTOBER TERN, Is6O.
lgsp1RrzD ExPEEasLT roR ruE EAsFARN ciAEioNl
JEFF, sLAVE,l
Vs. a4}sl
THE STATE.
....N1lFbrn

/ JEFF A sLANE1
VS. 7F"i
lAL aIAI o.
gJNcluprp
Before proceeding to examine tAo cases referred
to- a. ESTABLISHING different rule IN this county; W
viii refer to the case Of the Commonwealth vs. York
decided Uy e. Shaw, Ia elh Metcaii Mass Bi p Y3
/ a. ahordinE most careful able aud luminous discus
sion OF the whole subject and sanctonlng the view
we have taken of this case IL is true this was q cas-
OF murder hut T.. shaw. n his eablrat' and learn
ed Judgment discusses the question, defines what d
meant by malice 10 legal sense or malice ia law, 81
| contra dsunguishable rom malice ma i3et lie say
"A sane Wan. voluntary agent aeiiig upon tnotfes
must Ne presumed TO contemplate and intend tht
necessary natural and probable consequences Of hl'
own acts. ~ therefore one voluntarily or WliulN
does an act which has direct tendency 10 destroy
anothers life, the natural and necessary conclusion
from the act s, that he intended SO 90 destroy suet
| persons liio. 30 where dangerous ana deadly
| weapon Is used with violence, upon the person OF
another, this has direct tendency to destSy lie
or do some great bodily harm 70 the person a's9lled
the intention 90 la6e ll' or 90 MN some ttcai non
N h9rm j. g necessary conclusion nom me act -
eth Metest X p lQ5,
Ahcl citing authorities IN support Of these posi-
uons ne says "lhese instances taken irom cases
| having no analogy 20 the CRIME OF homcide are ad
ductd 10 the snow thst the presumption Of malice
! rom wrongful ana injurious aet. WllUly done
When opphel 20 hom'cde, IS not technical or Muh
ca on invented Tor inc particular oee 'lon hut Is the
result 0i MODE oi lesN reasoning Whleh Is o. gene
!
other authorities ITO snow that lho lhhuence OF maj
zee lrom unlaWtl oeis is not an aruhe4 rule OF law
eul nNtutu inference legtlnatey Ueuueeu Uou
actS admitted of proved, and that % ls not peculiar
to the law OF homicide hut prevails m all other dc
| palmenls ol the criminal law 10 TINS effect sec
Wharton Am. q. l.. 5. lil2-lli,-ll& and numerous
GhSIlrn i0 ",. .''l 49, u't.1 '5I Va WYNN. "
! lredgll III state W. Green, ,th lrcdell a9 'onm
VS. Webster 5th Cush tsfasg. RI 500.
The irstea-e cited ny counsel tor the accused i
the ca-c of The State Vs. stewart aqth Missouri r d
| Iu u,f
without an authority cited either hy the counsel fol
defendant or the court for the position and without
one word of explanation the court saws. -rho intent
Of the defendant IN making the assault was ques
ton Of fact for tha Jury The law raises no prpsimn
ton aiou it, and was error for the cuurt 10 ten tbf
Jury that "tha law presumes that every man intend.
thc natural nece sstry ana probable consequence oI
his acts" Tho facts of tfe case an, NOT Gwen and
ve are not therefore prepared To understand or nm
prcac She case as an authoritye precedent for OH
| guidnpce
| The next authority relied ON /. Roy va Crnse and
wife a. Z. CT. I'm 400 We have already seen tbai
this case does touch the point now before u.s. II we4
| Question ,yhathpr ma defen5opts m tha,r ,ntoy5
Gated condition We're cnpable Of the intention which
| the law rre-urnes from unla,,6tl acts
The utxt case cited ia be case of The state va nm
| IeiIerson All Usrrinot,n's G1eloy3ra r Nh ,Tha
prisoner was Indicted for an ass,ult AMI ,ttar, i,b
iptant 20 murder uo .bot ot ,s~ro ,,irl WIN !,
loaded ai, and WITHIN shootipg dstanco Nonc %,
| tha shot bther The nrisoner WHOM nrrasfod said
tbot H. meant T., .r.ntlb I'M ,ot A. Bin Vlis H. ~,
| whole ,t1tompnf If ihe ,ase contained m ropor,
| The ouipion of the oourtis follover Tho defond
apt is indicted for an assault on Alice lanes Win h.
.rr N commit murder 4n3 tbc noint h mazda III
h,s bccu arJlI.d Whether tbe ury nust he solisFed
that tbe doferrlsnt lad an aetpa neni,on liii ot
Fhetbor me law iInplr. fLe tnpt in c,.a NJ an Az
| fii oiy T., ,,r,.l,' 5itth w (. ,,i4 .i A. H. - ~ m W
| rom such an act where dea.b ens"ad Tba art oi
assembly provides THAI Ii any s.t 81, si..s
| ahall with violence make an assault upon another.
with intent to commit murder he shall be guilty Of
| felony &e Under this act we are of opinion that
the intent must be proved AS well as tho assaulf but
as the intent is matter that can only be proved bv
other ace an such facts must be considered In proof
of the intent; as the character Of the assault the
veapop used the danger of producing death and the
means uscd to produce or eyid death snch has been
the decision under similar British statute (Cru4es
| easa sth Car and Par SAL 34th Eng com law Rem
| 522r The case is barren OF authority as the case
cited from Missouri Tho citation of Cruse aud wife
as a case in point is a mistake as already shown and
the reasoning of the court if tending al all to con
clusion on the point In controversy rather seem. |,
| favor the doctrine Of the text books that the inten
may be proved "hy inference Of law from other fact
proved ed Groenleafs Fv. y. 17218
After quoting the act of assembly of Delaware th
count saws "under th. act we are Of opinion that th
intent must be proved as well as the assault but
the intent can only be proved bv other facts sucl
facts are to be considered in proof of the intent thu
assault the weapon, the danger the means used Il
| produco or avoid death
Does not the court mean to say NJ a matter Of a'
that intent H. 10 he inferred or nresutnrd from I'M
fact Of shooting a qin loaded with shot in shooting
distance nj anotheT in te sbsance of o other Gcts
| I'm any event whatever may have been the views o
be court Of this noint t6ev ,ra NOT pfliaantlv q Y
nreespd IN iustfv a i'm nvnrt1rnn doctrine y1b cl
has had the sanction Of he ablest Iudoes and lev
| writer's for moro than "A century
| The next authority relied on in the brief Of conn
4e for defendant is referenca IN piahon's Or lav
| b. IS. t6atinp of Attempts Tho ontbor in B. 24s
treating "0f what is sufficient criminal intent saws
The law presumes that every person intends 10 Il,
what he does; and intends the natural necessary and
| even probable consequences of his act of cours,
he pipsumption of an intent To 10 the ACT is alway
| open to be rebutted by evidence but when this In
ent is established the deduction that the conseauen
aes were also intended is generally not always con
elusive"
| Then the author comes to treat Of "attempts" In
| The section preceding the one cited bv defendant,
| counsel T. ji3 he saws We have already seen thai
every man is presumed to intend the natural necos