JB/096/211/001

Click Here To Edit

HOMICIDE.

Memor.m
Qu. whether to make a provision to exempt rioters assembled without any express murderous intentions
where yet killing ensues (as on popular accounts) from the mutilation - inside
or only to leave it upon the general power of Pardoning? semble, the latter but.

If the accidental kind appears manifestly to have been the killing of Nathaniel
Cony for which an Earl of Pembroke was tried for Murder and found guilty of Manslaughter + + 4th of April 1678. 2 St. Tr. 637. — they were both, with other company very much in liquor — The Earl provoked at
a resolute speech of Cony, which tho' proper enough & becoming, could not fail of galling
the person to whom it was adressed, fell upon him knocked him down with one blow
of his hand and gave him one kick with his foot — This insolence meeting with
such a state of Body, habitually distempered by the same courses threw him into a disorder, which after a shew of recovery
terminated in his death. What is there in all this, to import any intention even a sudden intention one of killing?
And what still further puts it out of doubt is that the same Earl had and another
Company had but just drawn their swords upon one another

Whoever compares this Trial with that of the Ld Mohun in King William's
Time Jan. 31st 1692 who stood with his sword drawn for hours together in the Street with Companion
waiting for an enemy of that companion's, who (the companion) when he saw him came at last fell upon
him & killed him + + There was a contrariety of evidence as to the point whether the person killed (who also had his sword) had time or no him to defend himself. will be surprized to see find that six Lords in the former case could
be wrought upon induced to find this Deft guilty of Murder 40 more found him guildty of Manslaughter. & 18 not guilty when no more than 14 out of 83 The rest found him found him not guilty of Mans as there are by Law no accomplices in the to Manslaughter 4 State Trials. 506.
pronounced that verdict in the latter — what wrought upon those 6 seems to have
the discourse of the Crown Lawyers upon the legal Idea topic of implied malice that one of those
house Services wherby a misconduct next to innocence may be construed into the highest guilt, who
might one should have thought in such a case have excused themselves the pressing on the charge of Murder.

Identifier: | JB/096/211/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 96.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	096	Main Headings	legislation
Folio number	211	Info in main headings field	homicide intentional in the 2d degree examp. e. pembroke 3d degree ld mohun indirect - jews drowned
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	c11
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	31215
Box Contents