The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1886-12-08

III. condition required great prudence
=, his mart. Ford was imprudent ana
on he 81 of September died from IN
famation of the bladder, which the at
tending physician states was SHOWN "
rost mortem examination to have been
a result of the wound.
On the trial, the court, st the instance
of the State attorney, gave two chaises
fthe LIST and 3D. to which exception was
taken hv the accused. 1t Is only neces-
sary TO state the third instruction, SINCE
that announced the law more strongly
against the defendant than the nrst' IL
i a. follows: "If death occurs from
wound given in malice, but not IN us
nature mortal, but which being neg
leeted or mismanaged the party uleS'
this will not excuse the party VINO gave
II. but he will be held guilty OF murder
unless it clearly and certainly appears
either by the evidence offered on the
behalf of the State or the defendant,
thar the deceased's own neglect ana
want of care, and not the wound ltseli'
WAS the sole cause of his death, tor II the
wound had not been given the party
had not died" 0,
an instruction practically the same Is
the one here given, IN the view In "n l'.h
it was considered by the COURT WIS
declared to be erroneous.
In that case the facts a. gwen ny tue
eoprt were. that & dangerous but not
necessarily fatal wound III the aooohleh
had been inflicted, the cut penetrating
so deep that the entrails protfuoe1'
| One Patrick, not q physician, had au-
miu,stered chloroform, replaced the
bowels and sewed up the wound. ne
physician who subsequently attenGeu
| the wounded man testified that Patriek
| treatment was not good surgery; tha'
| the wounded man died about sixty hours
after the wound was inflicted, as he sup
posed from inflsmation of the bowels
| that in his opinion death was caused oy
the wound, and that wounds In the
abdomen were dangerous but not neces
sarily fatal. On these facts the eouf'
said, "If then by misgovernment on the
| part of the medical attendant from lgno
rance or inattention, this would torn nc
exculpation if the wound were mortal
/ Arch. or. Proc and Plead, 262. But II
the wound were merely dangerous ano
the bad treatment the proximate aad
Immediate cause of the death, the result
would be different"
For the proposition that for danger
Gus wound resulting in death from mis-
management the party inhicting couiC
not be held liable for murder, no au
thorltv is cited either by the court or b,
counsel in that case. Nor has counse
in his brief in that case now before u
cited one, nor has our investigation dis
covered that there are any. On tn,
contrary the decisions seem TO be uni
form and numerous in support OF tn
instructions given by the court below
which is almost a literal copy or tn
law as given by Greenleaf on Evidence
Vol Sd, 2 l39.
We have examined many of the case
cited by Greenleaf in support of the tex
and others may be found in Powe'
Criminal Evidence, pages III, us AM
l7l9 As we have SAID they support tn
instruction given in this case, and S
far as we are advised are in conflict wit
no other case than that of McBeth \
/ The State. The principle of these case
is that one who malleiously lntilcts
serious injury upon another, from whic
: injury as the mediate but not immedi
, ate cause he dies, is responsible for tn
death. 1t is salutary rule, necessar
= for the protection of society by the pun
ishment of offenders and ought not
be departed from McBeth V. The Stat
is overruled in so far as it announces
! different rule, and the judgment of tn
lower court is affirmed.