41 Tenn. 62 | Tenn. | 1860
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The prisoner was convicted in the Criminal Court of Memphis, of involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced to the Penitentiary for five years, the highest term of punishment for this offense, which consists in the unlawful killing of another, without malice, either expressed or implied, but in the commission of some unlawful act. This is the lowest grade of felonious homicide.
The case comes to us upon an appeal of the prisoner, demanding a new trial upon the evidence. The prisoner is a free man of color, a hack driver in the city of Memphis ; and some witnesses state, was regarded as prudent and humane, but upon one occasion, was arrested for fast driving.
The deceased, for the slaying of whom, the prisoner was convicted, was John J. Brown, Jr., a little boy, between 8 and 4 years of age, the sou of John J. Brown, who resides in the city of Memphis, near Teste’s drug store, on the west side of Main Street. Dr. J. T. Marable, who was present, and saw the killing, testified, that he was on the corner of the pavement on the alley, in front of Teste’s drug store, on Main street, in the city of Memphis, in Sept-., 1860, at the time the child was run over and killed, by a hack driven by the prisoner, drawn by two horses.
Witness saw the little boy start to run across Main street, from Newsom’s house, which was on the opposite side of the street from where witness was, and attempt to pass directly, and not diagonally across the street; witness saw at the same time, the hack driven by the prisoner, coming down Main street ; that about the time the child got to the middle of the street, which witness estimated to be 60 feet wide between the curbings, and when the hack was some 40 or 50 feet from the point where the child was run over, Dr. Hallond, who was
It further appeared 'that there was no obstruction in the street to make the collision at all necessary, the only thing being a two horse wagon, some sixty or eighty feet from the hack, on the opposite side of the street, and north of where the child was killed. The same facts are 'proved, in substance, by Dr. Holland and Prank Tigers, (both of whom were present,) save as to immaterial circumstances:— that they thought the child was passing angularly across the street; the collision was in day time, and all agree that the hack was moving at a slow, moderate pace. The said Smith, and one Kennedy, a hack driver, who were in the hack at the time oí the catastrophe, were examined for the prisoner; but their testimony, though somewhat different from that furnished by the State, falls far short of exculpating the prisoner. The most that can be said of it, especially when connected with the other proof, is, that it establishes, not that the homicide was the result of misadventure, but of a criminal want of caution and circumspection. This difference in the proof may be readily accounted for, by the superior opportunity of the wit
This will more especially require the attention of officers of justice, and should be kept in mind by those who have to administer correction in foro domestico, and by persons employed in those common occupations, from which danger to others may possibly arise. If persons in pursuit of their lawful and common occupations, see danger probably arising to others from their acts, and yet persist, without giving sufficient warning of the danger, tbe death which ensues will be murder. Thus, if workmen throwing stones, rubbish, or other things, from a house, in the ordinary course of their business, happen to kill a person underneath, the question will be, whether they deliberately saw the danger, or betrayed any consciousness of it. If they did, and yet gave no warning, a. general malignity of heart may be inferred, and the act
All of the facts, then, and the law being as thus stated, the conviction must stand, the judgment be affirmed and the sentence carried into effect, the term to begin from this day.