The record-union., 1892-03-10
CHEWING A PERSONS EAR.
Fermentation Not Necessary to Con-
stitute Mayhem.
A Case of This Kind Decided by the
Supreme Court-A Merced Judg-
ment Also Affirmed.

Two Supreme Court opinions were filed
yesterday in Deputy Clerk Govan's Office
in this city.
The first was in the case of the People
VS.. Frank Wright. appealed from Nevada
County. The defendant was convicted OF
the crime of mayhem and sentenced to
{ three years. Imprisonment.
Wright, while drinking in saloon
with several others, became involved in a
quarrel with one of the party named
Grail, who challenged him to fight.
Wright declined, and Grail then left the
saloon. Immediately thereafter Wright
threw off his overcoat and walked up to
| aman named Trood. who was verv drunk.
Addressing him in an angry manner,
Wright said: ANY one who says Grail
was in this is liar" Trood responded :
Il said it, and / am not liar" Wright
then struck at Trood, and they at once
! engaged in a fight.
Fuller, the prosecuting witness in this
case, whose relations with the defendant
were friendly, and who had taken no
part IN any of the previous quarrels, was
standing near by when the alteration oc-
CURED, and when Wright and Trood
cllnched he stepped in between them and
separated the two, at the same time tell
ing them to stop lighting. Wright there
upon, and while Fuller had hold of him,
| threw his arm around the latter's neck,
and, seizing his ear with his teeth, bit a
part of IL off.
On the appeal to the Supreme Court from
the Judgment Of conviction and the order
denying his motion for a new trial, Wright
claimed that the evidence was insufficient
to justify the verdict, because there was
/ M Of n st,K,
ton.
The Supreme Court says that as malice
atorethought is not an essential element
IN the crime of mayhem, proof of pre-
meditation or deliberation is not re-
| quired. Numerous reported cases showed
that the crime Of mayhem was generally
committed in the midst Of sudden alter
cations, and without premeditation.
In conclusion the Supreme Court re-
marks: ''In the case before us the atrocity
Of the act itself creates the presumption
that it was intended, and as it does not
appear to have been done under circum-
| stances constituting a valid defense un-
der the law, it follows that the defendant
was properly convicted Of the crime
charged. The excuse that the act was
done while engaged in a fight sud
denly brought on by the interference of
Fuller, and under the belief by defend
ant that such interference was hostile to
him, constitutes no defense. The judg-
| ment and order of the lower court are af-
! tirmed."
a FRESNO BANK CASE.
In the case of the Fresno National Bank
! (appellant) VS.. b. A. Hawkins. the appeal
! is upon the judgment roll, and involves
the sut1iciency Of the complaint.
| The complaint alleged that Hawkins
was the County superintendent ofSchools
/ Of Fresno County, and that w. r. Bibby
was his regularly appointed deputy; that
! the bank, as was its custom, purchased, at
! the instance of Hawkins, by his deputy.
| certain school warrants. that these war
rants, except the Endorsement of filing,
were forged by Bibby, and that they
were void. The bank claimed to be dam
aged to the extent OF the money paid out
/ for such forged warrants. These war
rants were orders on the County Super
| intendent by the trustees of the various
school districts for acquisitions to the
| County Auditor.
In deciding this case the Supreme Court
! says that neither the forgery of the or
| ders by Bibby nor his presentation and
sale of them to the bank created any La
! biIity against Hawkins, the County Su-
! perintendent. In these matters Bibby
| was not acting in the line of his official
! duty, and by virtue Of his appointment as
| deputy he was not clothed with any such
! power. The bank knew the measure oi
! Hawkins power, and if not it should
have known, for all persons are held to
know the law.
| The judgment is affirmed.