sity to take such a step for self-preservation; in the former this necessity is not present, but a heat of the blood, an anger, an absence of calm reason, puts the party in a position where he is unable to control his actions for the moment in the latter, the act is excused entirely, in the former the punishment is only reduced.

But though there be legal provocation, yet if the prisoner did not act under it, but under a previously formed malice, he is guilty of murder. State v. Johnson, 1 Ired. (L.) 354.

Now in the chronicles of Kelyng, which were written in the fourteenth year of the reign of the merry King Charles II., it is written:

men build a

"In the Sessions in the old Bailey, holden the 13th of January, 1664, one John Hull was indicted for the Murder of Henry Cambridge, and upon the Evidence, the several workCase was that there were several Work-house by ye horse-ferry. men about, building of a House by the Horse-ferry, which House stood about 30 foot from any Highway or Common Passage; and Hull being a Master-workman (about Evening when the Master-workmen had given

to ye roof for timber.

timber.

over work, and when the Laborers were put- Hull mounteth ting up their Tools) was sent by his Master a piece of ye to bring from the House a piece of Timber which lay two Stories high; and he went He getteth ye up for that piece of Timber and before he threw it down, he cried out aloud, Stand He crieth out, Clear, and was heard by the Laborers and all of them went from the Danger, but only And pitcheth it Cambridge and the Piece of Timber fell upon

"Stand clear."

on ye head of Cambridge.

Who dieth.

Hull hath com

slaughter.

But per Kel.

JJ., it is only

him and killed him; and my Lord Chief Per Ld. Hyde, Justice Hyde held this to be Manslaughter, mitted man- for he said he should have let it down by a Rope, or else at his peril, be sure No body is there. But my brother Wylde and myself vng & Wylde, held it to be Misadventure, he doing nothmisadventure. ing but what it is usual with Workmen to do; and before he did it crying out aloud, Stand Clear, and so gave notice if there were any near they might avoid it; and we put the Case, a Man lopping a Tree, and when the Arms of the Tree were ready to fall, calls out to them below, Take Heed, and then the Arms of the Tree fall and kill a Man, this is Misadventure, and we showed him Poulton de pace, 120, where the Case is put and the Book cited and held to be Misadventure; and we said this Case in Question is much stronger than the Case where one throws a Stone or shoots an Arrow over a Wall or House, with which one is slain; this in Kelloway, 108 and 136, is said to be Misadvenand country ture. But we did all hold that there was a

London streets

towns

much

differ. great difference 'twixt the Case in Question, the House from which the Timber was thrown standing thirty foot from the Highway or Common Footpath, and doing the same act in the Streets of London; for we all agreed that in London that if one be a Cleansing of a Gutter, call out to Stand Aside and then throw down Rubbish or a piece of Timber, by which a Man is killed, this is Manslaughter; being in London, there is a continual Con

course of People passing up and down the
Streets and a new Passenger, who did not
hear him call out, and, therefore, the casting
down any such from a House into the Streets
is like the Case where a Man shoots an
Arrow or Gun into a Market-place full of
People, if any one be killed, it is Man-
slaughter; because in common Presumption,
his Intention was to do Mischief when he
casts or shoots anything which may kill
among a Multitude of People; but in case
that an House standing in a Country Town
where there is no such frequency of Pas-
sengers, if a Man call out thereto Stand
Aside, and Take Heed, and then cast
down the Filth of a Gutter, etc., my Brother
Wylde and I held that à far differing case
from doing the same thing in London. And
because my Lord Hyde differed in the Prin-
cipal Case, it was found Specially; but I Hull.
take the Law to be clear that it is but Mis-
adventure.

Judgment for

eth a pistol.

"At the same Sessions, James Rampton was indicted for the Murder of his Wife, and upon the Evidence, the Case was that he being a Hackney Coachman found a Soldier's Rampton findPistol in the Street, and when he came home he showed it to his Master, and they took He and his the Gunstick and put it into the Pistol and it ye bullets. went down into the Muzzle of the Pistol, by which they thought it was not Charged, and his wife standing before him he pulled up the Cock and the Pistol went off, and being looketh in.

master seek

Mistress
Rampton

two bullets in

And getteth charged with two Bullets wounded her in ye belly. the Belly, and killed her, upon which he cried out, O, I have killed my dear Wife,' and called in Neighbors, It was holden by Verdict of us all that this was Manslaughter and not Misadventure.”

manslaughter.

As we have already seen, an act to be criminal must be intentionally so, ante, p. 48, (except where it is positively prohibited by statute, ante, p.50). But we have also seen that this intent may be, and often is, inferred from the act itself. Ante, p. 49. As every one is presumed to intend the natural and ordinary consequences of his acts, if he is guilty of such a degree of negligence as naturally leads to certain results, he is presumed to have intended that result, and if it is fatal, to have intended a fatal result. And he is as criminally responsible as though his conduct proceeded from a malicious motive, though not, of course, in the same degree.

The law seeks to protect a person's life as well from negligence as from malice. In one case in England, the prisoner was an iron founder employed to cast some cannon. One of them on being fired burst, and was sent back to be recast. Instead of recasting it he filled up the hole with lead and returned it. As was to be expected, the first time it was used it exploded, and this time killed a man. The founder was held guilty of manslaughter. Reg. v. Carr, 8 C. & P. 163. The case of the sportive young man who thought the pistol was not loaded when he snapped it at a young lady is a similar one. Ante, p. 59.

From the authorities on the subject, four rules may be evolved :· 1. A man is not criminally responsible for an accident.

2. A man is criminally responsible for negligence.

3. Negligence may be by omission as well as commission.

4. Negligence, when it comes to crime, is not excused by negligence in the other party.

The third of these have been already discussed, ante, p. 39, and the fourth division is treated, further on, in Reg. v. Longbottom, post, p. 274. The first two require a few more remarks.

1. A man is not criminally responsible for an accident. Neither criminally nor civilly (see 1 Laws. Ld. Cas. Simp., p. 215), does the