The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1861-10-18

ANAIAN A.At ltl 4 tH ItliA iNAAAiN t ttt
Eioyous bodily harm upon any body Whom D m'gn
elEht though tAC particular cut proved has hol ca
eulSicd g do so The court held that malice sgNnsi
me indiydul cut + not essential that general malice
4 sufficient; that the intent 20 do greNous bodily
harm IS sufficient, tho tie cut Is slight and no, 10
vital pait tist Ac question ia sueh case y, nov Nha
the wound Is, hnt what wound was INTENDED.
Tho case 81 Regina ys Cruise atsd Wite, reported n
sth Carrngtou and Payno, p sal, and cited by coun
sci uum mere syllabus contained m -tth VOL OF
English Common law. Reps. IS not "a conhlct SO ia as
W. can learn from the book referred Co. with .he
general dsctine above stated Il only decides that
son an Indictment underth nc statute, Wet oh 80
for the ciptol 01oucc Of inhlcling an INJURY danger
Gus 90 lit wth intent TO murder the jury ought not
% conyc unlecs they satisfied that the prisoner
had in Ms mind positive intention 90 murder aud
u is not sufficient that it would have heou murder u
death bad ensued
From 90 review Of this case contained IN the las,
edition q Mr. Whsrlon's treatise on Am' an Ga
laN, segdeni tho question arc now considering
cd The author in treating 81 'ntoxication ss i@
fence" aud It's effect upon the question Of intunt
cites this follows, $50 again whom the charge
was sssanlt with intent 90 murder Patterson SAID,
"a person may he drunk ~ to be utterly unable 10
form auyintCnton at all and yet he may be guilty OF
very great violence II you are not satisfied that the
prisoners or either of them had formed positive in
tentiOn Of numbering the child, you may find them
guilty OF an assault Whartons Am Cr G. an re-
Nsed edition 2 AZ and also his reference 20 the
case in 100 further showing that II cannot be
relied on as an authority for the position assumed IN
this cause by counsel for defence.
Mr. Russell In treating Of this same subject, refers
TO the same case, In note and quotes Patterson j. as
follows, although drunllness Is no excuse IN any
crime whatever tits otte of very great Importance IN
cases where lt lsaqucston OtiutenuonH person may
be drunk rs 10 be utterly unable 60 form any In
tention, and yet he may be guilty Of very great vo-
lence,"
See also Bishop, Or. l.. q 2lS, lend Of a. and note
2reierring TO this case rs not affecting the general
rule stated by him, that the law presumes that every
person intends 70 do what he does, and intends the
natural necessary and even probable consequences
81 his act See again same author, q 20q, and 2gQ,
3ol treating Of Drunkenness connectod with in.
tention, and also see act OLA and 81 Greenleafs Ey
and = as 90 this case, Not having the full report
u the case at our command, we have been thus par.
tcuar in observing its citations for the reason that
great reliance is placed upon II as an authority In this
case, and it Is also the foundation Of the misc0ncep-
tons Of the judges in eases which are cited and relied
on from some Of the American courts which we
shall hereafter have occasion to notice.
In Rex ys. Philip Moody, Gro. cas- p. 2G3. Il was
resolved by the Judges that burning Of ship Of
which the defendant was part owner voluntarily. was
Wu act tending to obstruction Of the property Of
others, and that It was necessary Inference Of law
that he intended TO iniure them.
In Regua vs.. Hill Carr aud Payne, p. "a, (34th
English Com L. Il p GSS) before Mr.. Baron Anderson,
he Is reported m ,ummOning up to have said There
are two questions Of fact which shall leave 70 YOU
First did tho prisoner alter this bill TO Mr. Minor
true bill and meaning that he should take II as
0N'il anu N''bhA htki ne uil So illA ne KNOW II
to be forged you think that he did, Yen ought 10
fin as necessary consequence Of law that he meant
70 detraud say that You ought to infer II you are
satisfied on the other two points man must be
taken 20 intend the consequences Of his own acts
and must intend to detraud IL he pay anothera false
note instead Of n real Onen
Rex vs. Dixon, 3d NJ and 3. p, H. Is strong case
favor Of the position that the law will infer or pre
sumo criminal intent from the DONG an unlawful net
and % the same point is the case Of Rex vs. Wood
burn et a Ia llOwels State trials, p 81. whore the
intent TO main was held to be presumption Of Law
frOn the acts proved.
It will be from the cases cited that this doe
trine Is not peculiar to the law Of Homicide, but pre-
walls hall the departments Of criminal law
,-rta 4piu9Ap sec neriA QGtlglaf teR
will now advert 70 some Of their elementary writers
In Fosters crown law. p 2j5 the rule is Tins staed
IN his introduction to his discourse on Homicide
sin every charge Of murder, the fact Of killing being
hr7t proved all the circumstances Of accident neces
slty or hhtniy are to be satisfactorily proved Wy the
prisoner unless they a-o out Of the evidence against
HIM for the law presumoth the fact 10 have been
founded IN malice until the contrary appaareth '
See also p. 2o4 to the same fact
Lord Hale in his pleas Of the Crown, p i55 says
"When one voluntarily kills another the law pre-
sumos Il to be malicious and that he IS, hoftes
hlridai qeasFiSn
Mr. Blackstone in the ith vol Of his commentaries
says "that all homicide IL malicious, and OF course
amounts to murder, unless when Justified excused
alleyated into manslaughteT and all these crcum.
stances Of Justification, excuse or alienation s in
cumben upon the prisoner to make out to the salts
faction Of the court and jury"
Mr. Hawkins, vol Ch, 81 3 50. Mr. East vol. p
22l and $40, state the rule substantially in the same
way
Mr. RUSSELL in his 2d vol. p. 1901 9TH Am. edit
treating Of the aw Of presumpdve evidence, says
"hesides tho plesumptiOns which Jury may make
from circumstantiM evidence, there are also Tro
sumpuons Of law Thus in every charge Of murder
the fact Of killing being first proved, the law pre-
sumcs il to have been founded on malice tin the con
trary appear and therefore all circumstances alleged
by way Of justlhcailOn excuse or alienation must
be proved by the prisoner unless they arise ont Of
the evidence produced against him.
"Indeed says he, sit is universal principle rs
Lord EleubOr0ugh observed in the case Of Rex W.
Dixon, Sd NJ. and 5. l5 that when man is charged
with doing an act Of which the probable consequen-
ccs may b. highly injurious, the intention s an nfor.
ence Of law resulting from doing the act,n and the
same principle is stated on pc. 54i-b i'd. aud p
3g2
From the examination we have boen able 10 make
we think i may be safely affirmed The settled doc
trlne Of the English law with scarcely respectable
authority to the contrary, from the days Of Lord
Coke, to the present time that party is presumed
to intend the natural or even probable consequences
Of his act as an inference Of law subject to be rebu
ted by any evidence to the contrary IN the cause.
70 BB CONTINUED