mischief. And it should be observed as a general rule, that all homicide is presumed to be malicious, and of course amounting to murder, until the contrary appears, from circumstances of alleviation, excuse or justification: and that it is incumbent upon the prisoner to make out such circumstances to the satisfaction of the court and jury, unless they arise out of the evidence produced against him. It should also be remarked that, where the defence rests upon some violent provocation, it will not avail, however grievous such provocation may have been, if it appears that there was an interval of reflection, or a reasonable time for the blood to have cooled before the deadly purpose was effected. And provocation will be no answer to proof of express malice: so that, if, upon a provocation received, one party deliberately and advisedly denounce vengeance against the other, as by declaring that he will have his blood, or the like, and afterwards carry his design into execution, he will be guilty of murder; although the death happened so recently after the provocation as that the law might, apart from such evidence of express malice, have imputed the act to unadvised passion. But where fresh provocation intervenes between preconceived malice and the death, it ought clearly to appear that the killing was upon the antecedent malice; for if there be an old quarrel between A and B, and they are reconciled again, and then upon a new and sudden falling out, A kills B, this is not murder. It is not to be presumed that the parties fought upon the old grudge, unless it appear from the whole circumstances of the fact; but if upon the circumstances it should appear that the reconciliation was but pretended or counterfeit, and that the hurt done was upon the score of the old malice, then such killing will be murder.-1 Russell, If a man, after receiving a blow, feigns a reconciliation, and, after the lapse of a few minutes, invites a renewal of the aggression, with intent to use a deadly weapon, and, on such renewal, uses such weapon with deadly effect, there is evidence of implied malice to sustain the charge of murder. But if, after such reconciliation, the aggressor renews the contest, or attempts to do so, and the other, having a deadly weapon about him, on such sudden renewal of the provocation, uses it without previous intent to do so, there is evidence which may reduce the crime to manslaughter.-Reg. vs. Selton, 11 Cox 674. Mr. Justice Hannen in his charge to the jury in that case said: "Now, murder is killing with malice aforethought; but though the malice may be harboured for a long time for the gratification of a cherished revenge, it may, on the other hand, be generated in a man's mind according to the character of that mind, in a short space of time, and therefore it becomes the duty of the jury in each case to distinguish whether such motive had arisen in the mind of the prisoner, and whether it was for the gratification of such malice he committed the fatal act. But the law, having regard to the infirmity of man's nature, admits: evidence of such provocation as is calculated to throw a man's mind off its balance, so as to show that he committed the act while under the influence of temporary excitement, and thus to negative the malice which is of the essence of the crime of murder. It must not be a light provocation, it must be a grave provocation; and undoubtedly a blow is regarded by the law as such a grave provocation; and supposing a deadly stroke inflicted promptly upon such provocation, a jury would be justified in regarding the crime as reduced to manslaughter. But if such a period of time has elapsed as would be sufficient to enable the mind to recover its balance, and it appears that the fatal blow has been struck in the pursuit of revenge, then the crime will be murder." Verdict of manslaughter. In a case of death by stabbing, if the jury is of opinion that the wound was inflicted by the prisoner while smarting under a provocation so recent and so strong that he may be considered as not being at the moment the master of his own understanding, the offence will be manslaughter; but if there has been, after provocation, sufficient time for the blood to cool, for reason to resume its seat, before the mortal wound was given, the offence will amount to murder; and if the prisoner displays thought, contrivance and design in the mode of possessing himself of the weapon, and in again replacing it immediately after the blow was struck, such exercise of contrivance and design denotes rather the presence of judgment and reason than of violent and ungovernable passion.- Rex vs. Maynard, 6 C. & P. 157. Where a man finds another in the act of adultery with his wife, and kills him or her in the first transport of passion, he is only guilty of manslaughter and that in the lowest degree; for the provocation is grievous, such as the law reasonably concludes cannot be borne in the first transport of passion: and the Court in such cases will not inflict a severe punishment.-1 Russell, 786. So it seems that if a father were to see a person in the act of committing an unnatural offence with his son and were instantly to kill him, it would only be manslaughter. -Reg. vs. Fisher, 8 C. & P. 182. Eut in the case of the most grievous provocation to which a man can be exposed, that of finding another in the act of adultery with his wife, though it would be but manslaughter if he should kill the adulterer in the first transport of passion, yet if he kill him delibe- So, in the case of a father seeing a person in the act of committing an unnatural offence with his son, and killing him instantly, this would be manslaughter, but if he only hears of it, and goes in search of the person, and meeting him strikes him with a stick, and afterwards stabs him with a knife, and kills him, in point of law, it will be murder.- Reg. vs. Fisher, 8 C. & P. 182. In this last case, the Court said: "Whether the blood has had time to cool or not is a question for the Court and not for the jury, but it is for the jury to find what length of time elapsed between the provocation received and the act done.- 1 Russell, 725, but Greaves, note d, loc. cit., questions this dictum, and refers to Rex vs. Lynch, 5 C. & P. 324, and Rex vs. Maynard, suprà, where Tenterden and Tindal left it to the jury to say if the blood had had time to cool or not. If a blow without provocation is wilfully inflicted, the law infers that it was done with malice aforethought, and if death ensues the offender is guilty of murder, although the blow may have been given in a moment of passion. Reg. vs. Noon, 6 Cox 137. upon Even blows previously received will not extenuate homicide deliberate malice and revenge, especially where it is to be collected from the circumstances that the provocation was sought for the purpose of colouring the revenge.-Rex vs. Mason, 1 East P. C. 239. In Reg. vs. Welsh, 11 Cox 336, Keating, J., in summing up the case to the jury, said: "The prisoner is indicted for that he killed the deceased feloniously and with malice aforethought, that is to say, intentionally, without such provocation as would have excused, or such cause as might have justified the act. Malice aforethought means intention to kill. Whenever one person kills another intentionally, he does it with malice aforethought; in point of law, the intention signifies the malice. It is for him to show that it was not so by showing sufficient provocation, which only reduces the crime to manslaughter, because it tends to negative the malice. But when that provocation does not appear, the malice aforethought implied in the intention remains. By the law of England therefore, all intentional homicide is prima facie murder. It rests with the party charged with and proved to have committed it to show, either by evidence adduced for the purpose, or upon the facts as they appear, that the homicide took place under such circumstances as to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. Homicide which would be prima facie murder may be committed under such circumstances of provocation as to make it manslaughter and show that it was not committed with malice aforethought. The question therefore is, first, whether there is evidence of any such provocation as could reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter; and if there be any such evidence, then it is for the jury, whether it was such that they can attribute the act to the violence of passion. |