The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-12-20
WHAT is MANsLAueHTERl
An Interesting Discussion Of a Recent
Court Decision.

An Interesting Discussion Of q Recent
Court Decision.
To the Editor of The Post
This question be,omes very important
one IN view OF recent decision OF our
court Of criminal appeals rendered at Tyler.
November 20, 1901 Judge Brooks delivered
the opinion Of the court, which | give 10
full, without giving case, as follows;
Appellant was convicted Of manslaught.
or and his punishment assessed Mt continc-
ment In the penltentiary for q term OF
four years. In the view we take OF this
case i Is only necessary to pass upon one
question. Appellant Insists that the YER
dict Of the jury Is contrary to the law
and the evidence. The evidence In sub.
stance shows that deceased and appellant
had previously quarreiled and fought. On
the day OF the homicide appellant met de.
ceased in the road, and a light was pre-.
cipltated by appellant. Deceased retredted
across the fence about fifteen feet from APP
pellants wagon. Appellant threw a stick
az deceased, striking him above the ear,
cutting cash about three inches loAg
10 the bone, but the skull was not trar
tured. Deceased died about two hours
after the injury. II Is not shown there
was any specific intent on the part of ap.
peliant to kill Deceased, and hence the
verdict Of granddaughter is not authorized
by tho evidence. Because the testimony
is insufficient the judgment Is reversed
and the cause remauded II occurs to
me that the above decision Of the court
Is not the law, and Is rather, H. view n
the facts stated In the opinion aud the
statutory definition NJ mansisughter, very
peculiar and dangerous one.
Article 500 Of the Penal Code defines
mauslaugbter ~ he voluntary homicide
committed under the immediate Influence
Of sudden passion arising from 40 adequate
cause hut neither JUSTIFIED or excused by
law" Article 59s says, by the expression
under the immediate influence Of sudden
/, That the provocation must arise at
the time OF the commission OF the offense
and that the passion Is not the result Of
2. The act must he directly caused by
/ the passion arising out Of the provocation.
1t lS not enough thst the mind is merely
other provocation or proTocstlon given
bly,. some person other than the party
Article 5s7 sets forth what the law lays
/ down as adequate causes: I. An assault
and battery by the deceased causing pain
/ or bloodshed. 2, serious personal con.
hict In which great injury is inflicted hy
other instruments Of violence or by means
Of great superiority OF personal strength,
although the person guilty ot the homicide
were the aggressor, provided Such aggres
sion was not made with intent to bring
on conflict and for the purpose Of Kill
Ing etc.
Aud further, article coz Is as follows:
/ Though a homicide may take place
under circumstances showing no dellbera'
ton, yet II the person guilty thereof pro
ton n killing or doing serious bodily ~
jury 70 the deceased, the ofeuse does not
come within the definition Of man
slaughter" The party In such case would
be guilty OF a greater ofsnse, How tn,
/ court ~ the facts be true set forth
. In the opinion arrived NJ the conclusion
| that the appellant under the facts so stated
was not even guilty Of the onense OF man
slaughter Is a court made legal mystery
10 my mind. The court saws that It j.
not shown there any specific intent
on tho part OF appellant 90 kill deceased
ctc. What the court meant, or intended
| TO convey to the legal mind by the word,
specific intent In this connection. con
tess am unable to say The court doubt
loss had in view article 6l2 Of the Pena
Code. and rendered. lis decision without
tho court hereunder. The courts have
laid down this rule, viz "A man is al
ways presumed TO intend that which Is
OF his act, unless the contrary appears
Mccoy VS., state, 20 Tex. -
Ackcr VS., State, 10 App. $40
See also the case Of bones vs.. state, s
App, ii2 From the facts stated hy tn,
court this proposition would apply in thi,
case. The facts In the case decided b,
ne court show that the defendant and thi
fought and '% on the dSy Of tho hcmed1
the defendant met deceased IN the road and
whilst the deceased had reiterated across
tho fence about dfteen feet from defend
ant, struck deceased blow with sticl
10y throwing the Shmel large enough anC
with sufficient force 10 az o cash about
three inches long to the bone on the head
~ the deceased, but the skull was MOI
fractured, | infer from the opinion Of III.
court that II the skull had heen fractures
the opinion. perhaps, would have beer
dirfereut However, II occurs 10 me this
this failure 10 fracture the skull OF til,
deceased. did not innure TO his benefit. be
cause he died In about two hours nftel
the injury" The defendants good Tor
ture IN the premises seems 10 Nave beer
OF tho deceased, although Il seems not &
have been his fault that such was no
the case. The case stated In the opinion
would indicate no less ofense than murder
In the second degree, The facts, summed
MP briefly, are that defendant and deceased
had q hght prior 70 the killing Defendant
thereafter met deceased In the road, pro
marked another difficulty with deceased
aud after deceased retreated. Killed him
that's ain without cause or provocatloI
In any manner whatever on the part OF
deceased. II seams to have been the gen
eral impression OF late that courts iool
too much to precedent on which 70 has,
an opinion or NJ an excuse for decdinl
o case a certain way, and sometimes II
so doing apparently ignore the plain writ
not he said that the court was governed
or Influenced by precedent. In my juds
ment the plain letter OF the law, not onl,
the letter but the spirit OF the law Wa,
ignored, or overlooked. by the court anc
the opinion stands alone, II Is column
OF It's own height aud unsupported by thl
written law OF the land, or by any judlcla
opinion OF any court Jas. Greenwood