Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 10.pdf/412

 Practical Jokes. present instance the act was one of mere wantonness and sport, but still the act was wrongful; it was trespass. The only ques tion therefore is, whether the death of the party is to be fairly and reasonably consid ered as a consequence of such wrongful act; if it is followed from such wrongful act, as an effect from a cause, the offense is manslaugh ter; if it is altogether unconnected with it, it is an accidental death." The prisoners were sentenced to three months' imprisonment. In Rex v. Powell, 7 C. & P. 641, a lad, as a frolic, without any intent to harm any one, took the trap stick out of the front part of a cart, in consequence of which it was upset, and the carman who was in it, loading it, was pitched backward on the stones and killed. Held, manslaughter. The prisoner was fined one shilling and discharged. In Ewington's case, 2 Lewin C. C. 217, the prisoners covered and surrounded a drunken man with straw, and threw a shovel of hot cinders upon his belly, whereby he was burned to death. Paterson, J., charged that "if they believed the prisoners really in tended to do any serious injury to the de ceased, though not to kill him, it was mur der; but if they believed their intention to have been only to frighten him in sport, it was manslaughter." Verdict, manslaughter. In States. Roane, 2 Dev. 58, the defendant carelessly discharged a gun, intending only to frighten a supposed trespasser, really the servant of the prisoner, but killing him. Held, manslaughter. This case, although cited by Wharton under " practical jokes," does not answer that description; as also the case cited in 1 East's P. C. 236, where the prisoner ducked a thief who had picked his pocket, and accidentally drowned him. In Rex v. Martin, 3 C. & P. 211, the pris oner ordered a quartern of gin to drink, and asked a child present if he would have a drop, at the same time putting the glass to the child's mouth, whereupon the child snatched the glass and drank the whole contents, which caused his death. Vaughan,

379

B., said, as this was the act of the child, there must be an acquittal, " but if it had appeared that the prisoner had willingly given a child of this tender age a quartern of gin, out of a sort of brutal fun, and had thereby caused its death, I should most de cidedly have held that to be manslaughter." Giving one physic in sport, if fatal, is man slaughter. 1 East's P. C. 264. So, if one in shooting at another's fowls, in mere wan ton sport, kills a human being. Id. 255. In Rex v. Conrahy, 2 Crawf. & Dix, 86, the prisoner and the deceased had been piling turf together, and the former, in sport, threw a piece of turf at the latter, hitting and killing him. Held, no crime. In Rexf. Waters, 6 C. & P. 328, there was testimony that the prisoner, in the course of rough and drunken joking, pushed a boat with his foot, whereby the deceased fell overboard and was drowned. There was also testimony that the push was given by another person. Park, J., said, " if the case had rested on the evidence of the first witness it would not have amounted to man slaughter," and there must be an acquittal. The earliest case in this country seems to be Pennsylvania v. Lewis, Addison, 279, where complaint was made that the defen dant, had killed an old man, unintentionally but in rough sport, by pushing and crowding and falling on him, and throwing him off the porch of his house and kicking him, on the occasion of a wedding. The jury found it murder in the second degree, notwithstand ing the argument of prisoner's counsel that it " was nothing more than a usual frolic, ac cording to the customs and manner? of this country." In State v. Alexander, 7 Rich. 5, the de fendants, in a frolic mood, went to the prose cutor's stable, at midnight, and shaved his horse's tail, making considerable noise and alarming the family. This sportive demon stration was held a riot. It is not essential to a riot that there should be any evil or malicious purpose. Sportive noise, if alarm