Sharp County record., 1880-10-14
Law for Practical JOkerS.

The law holds practical jokers Grim
inally, and sometimes civilly, response
BILE for the fatal effects of their playful
pranks.
In Daingerfeld against Thompson, a
civil action of damages, decided re-
Gently by the Court OF Appeals Of Vir-
ginia, the defendant was the keeper OF
a restaurant, and about II p. m, after
he had closed for the night, hearing a
noise outside, was on the point of open
ing the door, when he was shot through
the right foot with a pistol ball which
had penetrated the door from the out
side. 1t appeared that several persons
being on the street waiting for the
plaintiff to let them in, the defendant
said to one of them who had pistol,
" Let US give him salute" To which
the latter, one Harrison, replied, "Ill
do it," and Immediately fired. The
willful firing of pistol in the street OF
a city, whether maliciously or not, "
said Christian, j., is of itself an un-
lawful act, and the consequences
of such unlawful act must be
visited upon those who commit
it or instigate it. As the
plaintiff got verdict for $4,000, this
was better than a criminal prosecution.
But the same practical joke would have
been criminal.
In Fenton's case, where the prisoners
in snort. threw heavy stones into a
mine, breaking a Scatfold, which fell
against and upset a corf, in which a
miner was descending into the mine,
whereby he was killed, they were held
guilty of manslaughter. The prisoners
were sentenced to three months i'm
prisonment. In the King against
Powell, a lad, as a frolic, without any
intent to harm anyone, took the trap
stick out of the front part of cart, in
consequence of which it was upset, and
the carman, who was in it, loading it
was pitched backward on the stones and
killed. Held, manslaughter. The
prisoner was fined one shilling and dis
charged. In Ewington's case the pris-
oners covered and surrounded drunken
man with straw and threw a shovel of
hot cinders upon him, whereby he was
burned to death. Paterson, j., charged
that " if they believed the prisoners
really intended to do any serious injury
to the deceased, though not to kill him,
it was murder; but if they believed their
intention to have been only to frighten
him in sport, it was manslaughter." "
Verdict, manslaughter. In State against
Roane the defendant carelessly dis
charged a gun, intending only to
frighten supposed trespasser, really
the servant of the prisoner, but killing
him. Held, manslaughter.
In the King against Martin the pris-
oner ordered a quartern of gin to drink,
and asked a child present if he would
have drop, at the same time putting
the glass to the child's mouth, where
upon the child snatched the glass and
drank the whole contents, which caused
his death. Vaughan, B., said, "as this
was the act of the child, there must be
an acquittal, but if it had appeared thai
the prisoner had willingly given a child
of this tender age quartern of gin, out
of sort of brutal fun, and had thereby
caused its death, | should most de
cidedly have held that to be man
slaughter.
In the King against Conrahy, thu
prisoner and the deceased had been
piling turf together, and the former, in
sport, threw piece of turf at the lat
ter, hitting and killing him. Held, nc
crime.
In the King against Waters, there
was testimony that the prisoner, in the
course of rough and drunken joking,
pushed boat with his foot, whereby
the deceased fell overheard and wa
drowned. There was also testimony
that the push was given by another per
son. Park, D., said, eff the case haC
rested on the evidence of the first wit
ness it would not have amounted t.
manslaughter," and there must be al
acquittal
In State against Hardie the defendan
was held guilty of manslaughter fol
killings woman in an attempt to frighter
her with a pistol which he supposed tC
be unloaded. The Court said: If il
had been in fact unloaded no homicide
would have resulted, but the defendant
would have been justly censurable for 8
most reckless and imprudent act in
frightening woman by pretending
that it was loaded and that he was
about to discharge it at her. Such
conduct is grossly reckless and repre-
hensible and without palliation or ex-
cuse. Human life is not to be sported
with by the use of firearms, even though
the person using them may have good
reason to believe that the weapon
used is not loaded or that being loaded
it will do 70 injury. When persons en-
gage in such reckless sport they should
be held liable for the conseque noes OF