The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1861-10-18
DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT
OCTOBER TERN, 1860.
lREPoRrED GxPRgs3lr FOR The KlsrEES cLAmoN.l
JEFF, AsLANEl

tREPoRrED EXPRESSLY FOR The klsrEES cLAaloNl
JEFF AsLAyEl
THE STATE.
The man points presented in this case were fuly
considered ANA determined by this court when this
case was here before. They were then carefully
amlned, and the result of the examination Of the
various authorities briefly stated. The case was then
reversed because the court had instructed the jury.
hat u tie pluuttl in error 'madc an assault and
battery upon his master or employer, with deadly
weapon and not in necessary sefdeience then they
Will ind him guilty as charged Thereby eyelud-
ing the intent gs aquoatOu Of i3c from the coustitu.
uon OF the Jury. ltis then said that "iR prusmpton
Of law the plaintiff In error in the absence Of proof
TO the contrary, will tc held to have intended the
natural and probable consequences Of every act de
uberaiely done by him. But this presumption only
amounts to pi1la facia aud not conclusive proof Of
such intention The Jury should have been left free
20 consider whether thc Testimony offered hy The
accused. TO rchut this legal prcsumpton-Aor other
wise submitted to them on the part Of the state,
satisfied their minds Of the absence OF such inten.
ton. Jtt ", State. s. Miss p, 32l The same prin-
cples asserted m the opinion just cited, Vefc present
fd TO the Jury IN several charges given by the court
gt the instance Of the State and also in a modifca-
@ % az ,, 'a g a. 4 toa instructions on the last
reversal now.
The cause has been again argued before us with
distinguished zeal and ability and upon the sup
position that the principle asserted i'm our previous
opinion Is in harmony with the rules nov c0ntended
for by COUNSEL for the accused. In thswo think that
cOunsol are wholly mistaken But as moro pride OF
consistency especially in adhurng a. error Is no
part OF the need coyet ia judicial labors,
have given fall consideration to the arguments, and
authorities relied on to establish the conclusion con
tended ler without reference 70 our former opinion
That there are some precedents TO be found in the
books Wherc the principle Is asserted that the intent
ol the defendant VA making the assault lsa question
OF TACT for the Jury ana that the law raises no pre-
sumption ahOutt in cases Of this descriptions should
not he matter Of surprise. considering their great
| number and variety. as well as the labor-saying
| hght3 VIII! when preeeden7 are some times made
Looking back TO the doctrines OF presHmpuVe cfl.
encc, and the reasons on which they rest as stated
By the elementary writer's, the question at issue VIII
De relieved ol most not an ulthcuy or Qbstully,
The Law does not always require the production ol
direct or positive proof Of the existence OF acts acH
or utcnts upon which TO base It's judgments deiiY.
ing Its principles often from human experience Of
| human motive and conduct 10 lnlers or pfesumes
sometimes the existence of one from proof OF The
other Indeed the elementary writer's on tho law Of
evidence abound. with illustrations Of legal presnnp-
| uons, which are ever conclusive amt ndisputabe'
| founded ON TINS philosophy ol human oxPeHence ~ ~
| to the intimate connection betwcen human motive
and human conduct The rule OF law IN such cases
| u not always rule of inference rom testimony
alone but sometimes rule OF protection as eNPedl-
| ant Tor the general good Ihese general doctrines
| OF pfcsumpliye evidence are not peculiar TO the
| municipal law nut are shared 6y tln common WIN
other departments ol science. mus the presumption
Oh l9aclous intention 10 Mi rom tlio aeipera1e
| use ol deady weapon ana lhS Presumption ol
tquAur hAQlts IN an ahltnal ioun1 WIN WebDed teet
belong to the same philosophy dliiorag only m the
| prlhePle ol itH appHeoloh' Inc one iaet oelhg
| proved the otheT its UNIFORM cohcOmaht ls unlYef-
saly ana saely presumed ~ " ui,7 uulloruily eh'
| peuGneed connection when leads 70 its recognl-
tioh 9y the law WlIho9l oteef PROOF lhe presuIip
.lon lplHg llotG ol 5~ ,n.,e " W uao
| uu'oisaUp OF tue eApelenc5, Hthce t'ie uOclllhes
oi conclusive ana dispulo9!e or ptmd laeid presump
lohs' SEQ ~ Grethepl ~. ~ 2 ~ ~ tis iallef
co-s, lol7puN9ie otp"la laed ple-ulnPuohs OF sW,l
| Il the general presumption oi lhnocehee' a. men
40 MOI gehcIal1 holhle it pehsi gotet tne aN pre-
suhhs every man innocent, uhul Ue cehuIy ls
proved 20 on tiie o'heI haho az men seldom 40 IN
laWini acts WIN innocent lhtthuohs Wheh an unsW'
lul act ls proven the presumption ot innocence Is re-
2u'le to tv ,"G - suCH et, Una" % lu a.,
nave ueeh cIllllui4 lh'giiued uulll Wy cOuNIJ y
made 20 appear HFo,hleh ~ p 70. 2 %, ~,
IN the % Noiuu2 Oh ms WVik On eh1ehce' MI
Greenleal az VI lrg ~ ilulhet Illustrates lhese views
ne says Nuolnet gi'lnl uoC'ilhv ilhv 81 GilHlna W.
tOunded IN hhtua IUsbee - tAat u u lis lhtehtlol
with Hneh en- ae wa oohe' tlal constitutes lls ctlnl
naly me lhteht ana llg NY must potl tQhcuF "a
constitute 'h9 eIne' anu W. ln'e.v uus1 we %
oe proved. rs mei as u,e o.nVt uteI Iacls ~ tl'
Indictment me pI19i may oe Sl,hef e py evidence
nIeel OF haieel lelllis W ealaIs' we lao,i OF Y
inference ol lW nom o'ilei ia1t5 piy't fVl th0kl
Is amaAlh OF laHi " ~ell as ne ulgsle ol chsIty
that every person y 20 pc PIosonVeu innocent uhtl
he Is proved 70 oe gullly yel " y q rue elua !
sOunu; w. etvl} an an PiI,h uss a.. aIp'ses 80 '
intend that which Is ihe ordinary ana natural conse
quenee oil ~ pu5Poso1 ~ lneleiuIo, "iieIe W & = =
act N ltseli mahletehI p1colhes ciluha u non
with a particular ihNuI uleh we lhleni i9uai .
proved aud lound out "neh lhe act s 70 llseI 9nlaN
u, the PROOF ot Juslucal9h OF excuse les on te ot
iendnnt, and ln mlge lhereot lhe lah implies
criminal intent ana ihls u the very language en-
poyed by LORD MAnsheid, ~ Neh vs. Noodiaii.