The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-04-20
MANSL AUG HTER
Man Who Shot Negro By
Mistake Convicted.
Jnry Found Special Verdict That
Shooting Was ACCidentaI---Court
Held That Game Law Violation
Made Him Guilty Of FeIOn-
itus Killing.

Game law statutes will have an
added force in future If the special
verdict and the sentence suffered by
one Bill Horton, of Franklin county,
yesterday on a charge of mansaugh-
ter are sustained by the Supreme
Court
The deduction by which Horton
was convicted may have sound
foundation in law. but to the lay mind
it seems to be a far-fetched sophistry.
The facts are that last November Hor-
ton, who is Il white man, was hunting
turkeys on the land Of a MIR. Allen In
Franklin county. While he waited
tensely for the expected appearance
of the game, he saw a motion in the
bushes and, thinking that the turkeys
had approached and were about to
fly fired instantly at the point Of COM
motion in the underbrush scream
followed and the hunter discovered to
his horror that he had hit a man in
stead Of a turkey. SO sorely wounded
was the man that he died in a short
time and the result was that on the
prosecution of the deceased relatives,
Horton was indicted, tried and yester-
day convicted on a special verdict OF
manslaughter.
The relatives of the negro, whose
name was Charlie Hunt, took the
ground in the trial that the deceased
came TO his death by the intention of
Horton, but the evidence showed and
the jury found that the killing was
accidental in so far as the fact that the
hunter mistook him for q turkey was
concerned.
The ground upon which the special
verdict and the sentence were based
was unique one. 1T seems that Frank
lin county has a special game law
Il;
to hunt on the land of another with
out the written permission of the
owner. Therefore. said the State, Hor-
ton when engaged In the act Of hunt
ing turkeys on the land Of Mr.. Allen
was acting in violation Of the law;
hence when. in consequence of such
unlawful act, he took human life, even
through mistake. he was guilty of
manslaughter. To kill could not be
justified, said the State. except the
slayer when he committed the act
was defending himself and not en-
gagged in any unlawful occupation. If
he was so violating the law at the
time of the killing there could be no
excuse which would relieve him of the
consequences even of an unintentional
and accidental taking of life. Once a
violator of the law, any act following
on the course and during the period
of that violation stood as if it had itself
been intentional and was not open to
any defense on the ground of acci-
dent.
Against this hypothesis. the defense
contended that the act as to hunting
OH land was a local and not a general
statute and that therefore the strict
rule of law applying to the taking OF
life by accident when in the perform
ance of an unlawful act could not APP
ply. 1t is well known that If a person
by gross negligence causes the death
OF fellow man he is guilty of man
slaughter and the rule seems to be that
If he is engaged in an unlawful act
and, without, his intention. that act
results i'm death he is likewise guilty
OF mansaughter. And ii is specially
provided in the act that if one kills
another while engaged in the COM
mission of a felony. he is guilty, not
of manslaughter, but of murder i'm the
first degree. Whether or not, how
ever, there is rule of law which re-
CARDS the nearness or the remoteness
of the facts relating In the first in
stance to a violation of the law and
in the second, to the resultant death
is a matter which it is within the
province of the law book writer's and
the judges to decide.
Judge Council, who heard the Hor-
ton case at Louisburg yesterday. was
closed-that the defendant was illegal
ly. hunting on another mans land ut
the time the homicide occurred-made
the killing manslaughter at the least
The jury, under the charge. brought
in special verdict to the effect that
the deceased was killed by the defend
ant who was hunting on anothers
land without permission. and on that
verdict the judge found that Horton
was guilty of manslaughter and inn
posed the minimum sentence of four
months. WhereuDon the defendants
counsel appealed to the Supreme
Court.
There appeared for the State Solic-
itor G. G. Daniels and Messrs. Beckett
and aYrborough and for the defend
ant, Messrs. Spruill and Ruff1n.
Asked as to his opinion of the case
last night, certain more or less well
Informed citizen of Raleigh replied:
well, / am no lawyer, but / have
intuitions which generally land me
alongside the Supreme Court, If base
my opinions on the first blush of inn
preston. And / will say now that the
Supreme Court is never going to sus-
tain verdict holding man guilty
Of manslaughter for shooting at a
turkey.
"If that is the law" concluded the
citizen with some heat. 'I simply want
to stand with Samival Weller in the
assertion that the law is a ass