Page:William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (4th ed, 1770, vol IV).djvu/218

206 hand or finger, or triking out his eye or foretooth, or depriving him of thoe parts, the los of which in all animals abates their courage, are held to be mayhems. But the cutting off his ear, or noe, or the like, are not held to be mayhems at common law ; becaue they do not weaken but only disfigure him.

the antient law of England he that maimed any man, whereby he lot any part of his body, was entenced to loe the like part; membrum pro membro : which is till the law in Sweden. But this went afterwards out of ue: partly becaue the law of retaliation, as was formerly hewn, is at bet an inadequate rule of punihment; and partly becaue upon a repetition of the offence the punihment could not be repeated. So that, by the common law, as it for a long time tood, mayhem was only punihable with fine and imprionment ; unles perhaps the offence of mayhem by catration, which all our old writers held to be felony; “et equitur aliquando poena capitalis, aliquando perpetuum exilium, cum omnium bonorum ademptione .” And this, although the mayhem was committed upon the highet provocation.

ubequent tatutes have put the crime and punihment of mayhem more out of doubt. For, firt, by tatute 5 Hen. IV. c. 5. to remedy a michief that then prevailed, of beating, wounding, or robbing a man, and then cutting out his tongue or putting out his eyes, to prevent him from being an evidence againt them, this offence is declared to be felony, if done of malice prepene; that is, as ir Edward Coke explains it, voluntarily Rh