Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume XI.djvu/132

 184 MANSFIELD gislator rather than of an administrator of the law ; and Junius in his letter of Nov. 14, 1770, said to him: "No learned man, even among your own tribe, thinks you qualified to preside in a court of common law ; yet it is confessed that, under Justinian, you might have made an incomparable prtor." In the Gordon or "no popery " riots of 1780 his house in Bloomsbury square, with its valuable library of books and manuscripts, his private papers, furniture, and other valuables, was destroyed by the mob, from whose fury he only escaped by taking ref- uge in Buckingham palace. He bore these mis- fortunes with a calmness which seemed to dis- arm his enemies, declining any pecuniary com- pensation from the treasury; and during the remainder of his life parties generally united in a feeling of respect for his character and virtues. He retained his office of chief justice till 1788, having in the interim several times declined the chancellorship, and passed the last few years of his life in retirement. He left no children, and his title of earl of Mansfield, granted in 1776, descended to his nephew Viscount Stor- inont, to whom the greater part of his large property was bequeathed. The title of Baron Mansfield expired with him. As a jurist the character of Lord Mansfield contrasts favor- ably with the timidity and narrow-mindedness which marked his legislative career ; and when not influenced by political views his decisions were almost uniformly correct. Commencing his judicial career as a reformer, he aimed at expediting legal proceedings, and by diminish- ing the expenses of suitors, and preventing unnecessary delays, caused the business of the courts, though greatly increased, to be despatched with unexampled rapidity. Gifted with an acute and powerful intellect, and with a wonderfully retentive memory, he was in the habit of considering the intent and spirit of the law rather than its letter ; but his eagerness to discourage technicalities, and preference of the principles of the civil law, occasionally led him to make the law instead of expounding it. In constructing a system of jurisprudence and adapting a progressive state of society to cir- cumstances and cases entirely new, he was eminently successful ; and English commercial law, particularly that branch of it relating to marine insurance, will be an enduring monu- ment of his genius and industry. His conduct on the bench was marked by great dignity and amenity of manners, and in general he showed himself so worthy of his high office that Lord Chatham, for many years his determined polit- ical opponent, comparing him with two of the ni"-t illustrious P.ritish jurists, Somers and II. -It, exclaimed: "I vow to God, I think the noble lord excels them both in abilities." Tliuuirh O|IJMI..,.I to liberal ideas, he was uni- formly toli-rant in matters of religious opinion. Hi" arguments and decisions are preserved in Atkins's, Burrows's, Douglas's, and Cowper's reports ; and his life has been written by John llolliday ( . 17i7j. Henry lioscoe (1838), and Lord MANSLAUGHTER Campbell in "Lives of the Chief Justices" (1849-'67). See also " Sketches of Statesmen who flourished in the Time of George III.," by Lord Brougham (1839-'43); and u The Judges of England," by Edward Foss (1848-'64). MANSLAUGHTER. In the article HOMICIDE, it is said that felonious homicide is either manslaughter or murder. These two are dis- tinguished from each other by the intent which causes or accompanies the act. If a homicide be not justifiable nor excusable, and yet be not committed with malice aforethought, it is man- slaughter. It is quite certain that the intent need not be to kill ; for while there must be a criminal intent to make a person amenable to law as a criminal, yet if one crime be intended, and in the act of committing it another of a higher character be also committed without in- tent, the criminal is responsible for this higher crime. The general principle laid down in re- spect to manslaughter is, that not only a posi- tive intention to commit some crime, but mere negligence, may make one guilty. If any one take upon himself an office or duty requiring care or skill, he is liable for the want of either ; and if death be the consequence of his ignorance or carelessness, he is guilty of manslaughter. So if one driving furiously run over and kill a person whom he did not see, or if one in com- mand of a steamer or sailing vessel by reason of gross negligence run down a boat and some one in it be drowned, this would be man- slaughter. So if any one, whether medical by profession or not, deal with another as a physi- cian, and through gross want of care or skill kill him ; or if any one charged with building a house of any kind construct it so badly that it falls and kills persons within or near it ; or if in building he drop a stone upon some on< ing below, and kill him ; in all these cases he would be guilty of manslaughter, provided he were grossly negligent in the act causing the death. This is the essential question ; thus, in the last case, if he were building in a place where few persons were, and it was by a rare occurrence that some one happened to be where the stone fell, it is said that there would be n< such negligence as would make the killer re- sponsible as a criminal; while, on the other hand, if it were a crowded thoroughfare, and the person dropping the stone gave no notice or warning and used no precaution to prevent mischief, the crime would then amount to mur- der. So if one ride a vicious horse, who kicks some one to death, it is no crime whatever if the rider did not know his character and did nothing by his carelessness to bring about the fatal result ; but if he knew that the animal was vicious, and carelessly rode him near a crowd and exposed him to alarm likely to make him run into the crowd and do mischief, the the killing would be manslaughter. Sometime it is said that if manslaughter be charged upon one on the ground of negligence only, without intent, this charge can be sustained only by evi- dence of the grossest negligence. It has been