The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-01-24

ne s except sSss NJ East II Pleas
Sfi' concludes, S., 8 Eosd Coke ADDS. III '''''
But whatever act may have been recognized as may,
@ The he tie
Ss po1 TO Sasss M a ss s
and the statute Is Car
chy as spe co Of % the
@
neS oa Of the %
81 S.S 81. St Sl
lip or ss of disable any limb or %mSe d 81 ny aS
IN any OF the manners aforesaid" shall DC su''y Oh
' WITHOUT pKsEyIr OF CLERGY
have the aha law Of se In
think arising since its enactment in which an injury
% s or e. e ao
ms has been regarded dsi1ins what before
d lead o. where husband had cut the throat Of his
@ f sss Is ne sass S Ss III sa.
LAG sa a @ ns e s 5
Hss% by wS Sa as fS ans act
malicious maimns which later act was SIS substantially b
ns Of The in
ss AZ in n sns seS P g.
a eve es @ nc S ss ne
n Sson
previous statutes The statute Of Car has been fol-
s d
pa Gpos hs crime
mayhem includes those injuries only which are therein
above cited was intended statute definition e mat
Ss tna Se the aS ee
01s se
hS n ali h
time Of LORD Coke hnSe within that Ss
indicted Under the act Of william " and Vet chap
any
Or Il aS Of S.Aff s
evidence that the With axe nS nek the
P.nss Charging the jury
Of IN or a'f hs Ss Sw
been otherwise II it had been
prevent his being able it The question, there
win be- ,b there Wo%dn ,% wS
bodily ns direct ISs and
ee % 81 So
9 of P T Ss1s close S he m a
this cass but are Of eppion That ne result would
Dc s s ssa
a & ns to Gn am G no 70
''"' " '-' p'''c Tmr orrnSor WAS MURDER
the ses md @ s s
@ that the r to the fu
The request assumes that the prisoner acted striking
the blow after having formed intent as to the extent
bar the head IF 9s
brain. There evidence from which his intent s
facts preceding the assault and by the act itself and It's
results II Is fundamental rule of evidence of very
Se4enee to the
consequences of his acts In this case death ensued and
the blow inflicted we cannot without doing violence
tended to break the skull Of Putnam without pro.
ducng death. Such intent cannot be predcated
OF his act and there is evidence establish It, II the
prisoner acted from he have intended
to kill the deceased simply to do him bodily injury;
but that he intended the particular injury Of breaking
arm or other member Is by accident defeated from Its
INrLrcrs A MORTAL WOUND
In such or similar an intent to MAIN only might be
found by the jury And II In this case death had not
fracture of the head was maiming), have been con
ycted OF intent MAIN. EAST Pleas Of the Crown Eel
!" e Il
the blow kill the deceased By necessary infer
the must have found the prisoner not at the
other than the Homicide OF which he was convicted Il
the Court erred in refusing to charge requested yet il
preudiced thereby and especially In view of the further
fact that the Court charged that unless this intent was
om Int We Sreer to- rest st our decision upon the other
grounds indicated: After careful consde ration of the
Sss OF la" arising upon 'rec0rd we arc OF opinion
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
This question Is and the proper 10 have
been brought here for final Adjudication, and while
trivial in Judgment involving life Is TO be
remembered that the law OF murder designed for the
sanction ought not to be weakened by reversing con-
vicoas upon objections which unsustaned by reason
The Judgment is affirmed.