|
128
death: life, it maybe, encumbered with long and severe punishment ;
but still it is life,-life which is clung to-life rendered radiant with
hope. And though this line may be a narrow line, and though the cir=
cumstances may fade into each other, they are not to be lost sight of.
And as one is deliberate, cruel, and without provocation, the other is
hasty, in heat of blood, and with provocation, or sudden combat.
Thus much, Gentlemen, for murder from implied malice; and thus
much for the general definition of manslaughter. But, Gentlemen,
it is necessary to go a little further here, as I have undertaken to give
a definition of both of these offences. The law states, as I have
already remarked to you, that manslaughter is in heat of blood, with
reasonable provocation. Now the question arises, what is sufficient
provocation to reduce a murder to a manslaughter ? What does the
law deem to be a reasonable provocation? To answer this, we must
go to the books. And it is easy to answer it from the books, because
the different acts of provocation have been well known and long
defined, for numerous years.
In ascertaining, Gentlemen, what is deemed to be a reasonable
provocation, the law always regards the weapon, or the instrument,
with which the homicide is committed. For you will see, at once,
that. one kind of provocation might. be considered sufficient to excuse
a blow with one weapon, which may be very insufficient to excuse a
blow with another. The provocation that might excuse a blow with
a stick, might be insufficient to excuse it with an iron bar. In con-
sidering what is a reasonable provocation to extenuate, the murder
into manslaughter, it is necessary to ascertain what the weapon is ;
because from the weapon the provocation is to be estimated. Now,
when we speak of deaths by a weapon, they may be divided into death
from two general classes of weapons : those which are likely to pro-
duce death, and those which are, not ; those which are deadly, and
those which are not. Now,we have the question raised at once, What
is considered a reasonable provocation to reduce a homicide from
murder to manslaughter, where a deadly weapon is used ? And then,
what is a sufficient provocation to reduce it, where a weapon not
deadly is used ? I am dwelling upon this, in regard to the manner
of death, because by and by it will become material, when it is neces-
sary to speak-when we come to speak of the indictment. It may
be essential to our positions, by and by.
What is a reasonable provocation for the use of a dangerous weapon ?
and then for a weapon not dangerous ? I will answer the first ques-
tion from a book. And I read from East's Pleas of the Crown.
°° Any assault, made with violence or circumstances of indignity, upon
a man's person, as by pulling him by the nose, if it be resented imme-
diately, by the death of the aggressor, and it appears that the party
acted in the heat of blood upon that provocation, will reduce the crime
to manslaughter."
What will reduce the crime of killing, if it be done with a deadly
weapon ?
Chief Justice Shaw. What section is that?
Mr. Sohier. Chap. 5, sect. 20. Now, in this connection, Gen-
tlemen, 1 will merely read from here au abstract from a case which
illustrates this position,--an assault made upon a man's person.
Take Lanure's case, as it is called, where a person was riding
|
