*1 151 1971] of East Tawas Maki TAWAS v. CITY OF EAST MAKI op the Court op Scope Law. Title —Constitutional 1. Statutes — constitu- held that Supreme has often Michigan Court The an shall statutory enactments, that stricture tional formality title, a hollow was not of its not exceed 24). 1963, 4, (Const art § One-Object — — — Limitation Law 2. Constitutional Statutes Immunity. — Negligence — Governmental Torts immunity governmental statute indicates that of the The title negli- immunity for acts of act should create creates gence, however, itself a certain section the act torts; area of immunity much broader for the constitutional, of the statute thus, hold that section reduce the required be Michigan Supreme Court would government’s of thе by negligence,” however, immunity from “torts torts to engage require Court to interpretation would such interpretation, in the name judicial legislation and such constitutionality, would exhaust preserving a statute’s prohibition law shall embrace more than that no constitutional meaning object expressed in its title of all which shall be one 24; 691.1407). 4, MCLA (Const art § § Negligence 3. and Phrases. —Torts—Words and, legal while “Negligence” and remain terms of art “tort” elusive, they are not precise their definitions are often synonymous. [3] [1, 2, [2, 4-6,10,11,14,15] '7, 9,10] 12,15] 13] 14] 58 Am 477, 483, 484. 38 Am 4-8] 50 Am 50 Am Am 39 Am Jur, Am 50 Negligence Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Torts §§ Am Beferences Jur, Jur, Nuisances Nuisances Jur, Statutes Statutes § Nuisances §§ 16 Am Jur Statutes 3. for Points § 223. 2. 200. 474. § 2d, 159 et Constitutional 95. seq. Headnotes Law §§ 465- Mich — n Immunity — — 4. Statutes Law Governmental Constitutional Negligence — Torts. statute, governmental immunity provides section *2 agencies governmental shall that be immune from tort government liability agency in all cases wherein said discharge engaged governmental in a exercise and of the function, scope of the its title and is exceeds therefore (MCLA 691.1407). and unconstitutional invalid § Immunity 5. Statutes —Torts—Governmental —Constitutional Law. governmental immunity statute, The section of the which provides governmental agencies that all shall be immune from liability government agency tort in all cases wherein said engaged discharge in governmental exercise of a independent function, is of the remainder of can, therefore, act, be severed from the but remainder capable of in complete being the act is itself and of otherwise
carried out to without reference the unconstitutional section (MCLA 691.1407). 8.5, §§
Opinion Concurring in Affirmance
Black, See Headnote 4.
Dissenting Opinion T. E. Brennan, JJ. One-Object
6. of Statutes —Title Act —Constitutional Law — Torts—Negligence—Governmental Immunity. Limitation — grants The governmental section an act which to agencies liability all tort when in for object expressed title, embraces an in its functions grants immunity agencies states the act to injuries persons property by negligence, provision violation a constitutional that no law shall em- brace object, more than expressed one whiсh shall be its title, clearly as the term “tort” is broader in than the term “negligence”, tort includes intentional torts and strict negligence torts as well as those (Const 1963, 24; 691.1407). art MCLA Tawas Maki East Construction—Legislative Intent —Constitutional 7. Statutes — Law. upon Michigan Supreme Court to sustain It is incumbent language constitutionality construction statute’s enacting preserve intent manifested properly be done. statute that can if op — Scope— Title Construction —’Constitutional Statutes Law. Michigan Court, with Supreme the situa- when The confronted exceeding title, statutory provision tion preserve adopted statute narrow construction has constitutionality (Const 1963, 4, 24). art the statute’s Invаlidity Legislative — — — Partial 9. Statutes Construction Intent. construing invalidity partial rule must be followed narrowly where provisions an act’s title conform legislative such construction works intent. fulfill Immunity Negligence — — — Governmental Statutes 10. Torts Invalidity Severability. *3 — — Partial —Construction granting immunity The term in a section a statute “tort” of governmental liability engaged agencies when all tort for governmental to torts should be construed refer functions by negligent partial applying the caused conduct rule of invalidity statutory severability (MCLA and the rule on §§ 8.5, 691.1407). Immunity —Torts— 11. Nuisance —Common Law —Governmental Statutes. judge-made exception is rule Nuisance a the common-law from governmental languаge and the of of from granting immunity governmental agencies the statute for engaged liability by negligent all tort caused conduct when governmental gov- liability alter the does not functions of agencies (MCLA 691.1407). ernmental nuisance for Municipal Garbage Dump Negligence. 12. Nuisance — — municipal garbage operation Nuisance in manner a of dump negligent where nuisance out conduct jury there intentional was no nuisance found maintaining municipality dump. its no laws in broke Negligence—Contributory Negligence. 13. Nuisance — negligence good Contributory to nuisances defense conduct but not other classes nuisances. for 385 Mich op the Court Liability in Tort —Governmental 14. Nuisance —Torts—Strict Immunity. illegal conduct, conduct based on intentional which are Nuisances ultrahazardous, conduct, that characterized such as for liability imposed, a class constitute in tort which strict immunity. governmental tort there is nuisances for Municipal Garbage — Municipal Corporations — Nuisance 15. Immunity Torts—Negligence. Dump — — Governmental theory against municipality nuisance on the Action for garbage dump injuries personal its is barred incurred at i/mmunity grants a statute which virtue of by negligent agencies conduct tort jury where when functions municipal- intentional nuisance and there was no found maintaining (MCLA 691.1407). ity dump no laws in brolce Appeal Appeals, Division Levin, from Court affirming Iosco, JJ., P. and Holbrook and J., Danhof, January 8, 1971. Allan C. Submitted Miller, J. (No. 52,539.) January Docket No. Term July 7, Decided App 109 affirmed. against
Complaint by Maki Leo V. resulting eye from of an East Tawas for the loss Judgment explosion plaintiff. municipal dump. at the Ap- appealed Court Defendant Appeals peals. appealed Plaintiff Court of trial. Affirmed. of his for a new denial motion appeals. Defendant Affirmed. Harrigan Majoros, & Alex Mossner,
Cicinelli, *4 plaintiff. ander, for Egloff, City Attorney, Freel, and Mai
Michael N. Taylor, McGraw & for defendant. nolfi, Collison, T. In December the G. Kavanagh, city plaintiff, Leo went the defendant’s Maki, Maki of East Taw as op the Court dumped dump Hе refuse. some refuse to discard city employee designated by the attendant an area at talk to the attendant. While then remained to and explosion bicycle part, inquiring about a a small plaintiff nearby fire in a refuse and the occurred appeared eye by a left what to be .22 struck in the caliber bullet. eye plaintiff lost the left
The later use of his city ensuing he for his and sued defendant disability. plaintiff originally upon neg- claim based his
The gross negligence ligence and nuisance and counts city filed a motion answer, added. later were asserting judgment 1964 PA for accelerated (MCLA § § Ann 691.1407; Stat No [107]) § held them immune from such a Rev 3.996 judge circuit deniеd defendant’s mo- suit. The stating § foresaid was unconstitu- tion object it did within embraced in tional as not fall stripped thus of the act. the defendant the title With plaintiff voluntarily had and after the negli- allegations complaint his his struck proceeded gence gross negligence the case theory jury solely jury The of nuisance. trial on the plaintiff $12,500 a verdict returned special finding city unanimously that the found nuisance but did maintained an intentional had not city main- had two find on vote ten to manner tained a nuisance “out of the operation”. judge Appeals affirmed the trial
The Court appealed this Court. the defendant PA statute, (MCLA 691.1407; Stat Ann Rev No 170 7 [107]) states: 3.996 provided, “Exсept otherwise agencies from tort shall be immune *5 [July- Mich op the Court government agency liability wherein said in all cases discharge govern- engaged and exercise in the Except provided as otherwise mental function. modify- construed as shall not he herein, act immunity restricting ing tort of the state from im- liability heretofore, it existed (Emphasis added.) munity hereby affirmed.” immunity plaintiff created that the claims immunity encompasses from tort on its face plaintiff liability if and such is and more inclusive create broader claims it would governmental expressed immunity than is PA No 170: title to municipal liability act make uniform
“An political state, and the corporatiоns, subdivisions, agencies departments, when in a its injuries property function, negligence; persons to define and caused and limit such the state authorize liability liability; of to to define and limit proprietary engaged in function; when purchase pro- insurance to pro- against liability; such loss out of tect defending against certain made claims vide public damages sought paying or a- officers and against repeal certain them; warded acts and parts (Emphasis supplied.) of acts.” liability”
If act’s from “tort created in reach is broader than the title’s “for negli- injuries property persons gence”, plaintiff claims 7 violate the would prohibitiоn § 24 of Const art law object more shall embrace which shall be than one expressed in its title. quoted
In 1888 we
the observations made in Jus-
tice
Cooley’s
treatise on Constitutional limitations
duty
determining
on our
whether
was with-
Maki Bast Tawas
Opinion op the Court
title.
As in other areas his com-
today:
ments are still relevant
“
legislature may
‘As the
make the title to an act
*6
please,
they
restrictive
they
as
may
it is
that
obvious
preclude many
sometimes
frame it
so
as to
mat
being
might,
ters
tire
included in the act which
with en
propriety,
have been embraced in one enactment
with the matters
the title,
indicated
but which
must now be excluded
the title has
because
beеn
unnecessarily
made
restrictive. The courts cannot
enlarge
They
title.
invested
are
dispensing power.
with no
The constitution has
legislative
made the title the conclusive index to the
operation.
intent as to what shall have
It is no
say
might
answer
the title
have been made
comprehensive,
legislature
more
not seen
if in fact the
have
”
fit to make it so.’
the Matter of
Charles Hauck
70 Mich
have often held
We
that this constitutional stric-
statutory
ture on
enactments was not hollow form-
ality. MacLean
Board
Control
v. State
Vo-
synopsizes
cational Education
out, the in Prosser Torts refer trespass, as- actions direct nuisance, battery, sault and deceit, false arrest, defamation, process, prosecution abusе malicious and eco- apart nomic duress—all which are tort actions *7 negligence might brought from and all which be of against governmental body. appear, §
It would that to hold 7 constitu- then, required scope tional we would be to reduce the of government’s § immunity 7 from by neg- all “torts” to from “torts ligence”. interpretation, Such an however would require engage judicial legislation.1 this Court interpretation preserving
Such
in the
of
name
constitutionality2
statute’s
would exhaust Const
§
meaning. “Negligence”
243
1963,
4,
art
of all
and
legal
“tort” remain
terms of art and while their
1
say
clearly
We cannot
impact
understood the
“negligence”
they
distinction between “torts” аnd
and if
were
apprised
not
gence”
“negli-
different
the terms
and
“tort”
they
we
they
cannot determine how
would have voted had
known the difference.
2
Michigan
Lansing
State Bar
example
See for
v
361
Corporation
Muskegon Twp.
Mich 185 and Continental Motors
v.
(1965),
“is to expresses purpose by Congress It words. all, nor subtract, to add for us to ascertain —neither neither to Jam nor Cases v. delete to distort.” (71 515, 340 S 593, US Ct United States People 570). Blum L See also v. 95 Ed 518; (1914), 183 Mich rich construing, § that 7 exceeds we hold
So therefore unconstitutional its title independent hold that 7 is invalid. further We and can therefore of PA the remainder No remainder of PA act.5 The be severed complete in itself and No 170 is otherwise capable being reference carried out without the unconstitutional 7.6 posture unnecessary
In this
it is
to decide what
(i.e.,
recovery
effect the naturе of
nuisance
operation”)
municipal immunity.7
“manner of
has on
present
upon
The action
case was based
nuisance and as
Jur, Nuisances,
282;
CJS,
4, p
Negligence, §1(10),
39 Am
p
King
(CA5, 1945),
452 and
Columbian Carbon Co.
F2d 636
say
‘negligence’
syn
effect “the terms ‘nuisance’ and
are not
*8
onymous.”
(King
p 638).
v. Columbian Carbon Co at
Both are
species of torts.
5
People
(Stat
§2.216).
1969
MCLA 8.5
Ann
Rev
See also
v
McMurchy
Judge
Wayne
Klatt
(1930),
Accordingly affirm we verdict. public question being No involved. costs, M. Adams J., T. C. Kavanagh, Swainson, with T. JJ., concurred G. J. Kavanagh, (concurring affirmance). When the Black, municipal corporation applied defendant for leave (granted to review the decision of Division Feb- ruary 766), upon I 10, 1970; concluded papers opinions review of the submitted and the Judges below that had rea- Danhok Holbrook right response soned out for those combined and obviously questions statutory difficult construc- validity opinion tion and constitutional which their portrays (Maki City East Tawas [1969], App 109). I Mich recall here As most then came yet similar by conclusion, as recommended to us granted applica- one of our tion we Commissioners widespread importance on account questions. such In a it was dеemed best that word, question, the defendant-stated plaintiff’s provi- by “Was cause of action barred being 3.996(101) PA sions Act 170 of MSA seql” et by light should come to decision Court in the specific specially facts of the deter- case jury’s mined verdict. appeal January was submitted 8,1971. Since opinions
then two submitted two Justices have been submitted to us for I consideration. One as judgment read it stands affirmance of Appeals affirmance which other Court of entered. An- disagrees, reasoning both as to and result. Being continuing view Danhof-Hol- opinion acceptable above is the most brook *9 161 City Matct East Tawas ok Williams, by J. Dissenting Opinion and real- endorsemеnt, for available are that three too has many chronically Court this izing as adopt have decided to cases, I given opinions opinion of the part own that my Danhok-Holbrook 119 sentence with the page on which commences and question.”, now to the constitutional come “We opinion end of the to through continuing 125. page of Const requirements the will satisfy
The above I to affirm, thereof vote On strength 6, § art 1963, award of costs. without an action brought This (dissenting.) J. Williams, for in- personal injuries to recover
by plaintiff dump garbage he was at a municipal curred while East Tawas raises two operated by to. Article 24 First, § questions. pursuant an act оf the Constitution, restricting Michigan 7 of its should of the scope title, § to im- grants which statute, immunity governmental all tort liabil- munity governmental agencies be in functions,1 when ity engaged governmental act’s title which says reduced to the agencies for grants immunity governmental act by negli- or caused injuries persons property or should gence2 § be held unconstitutional toto ? governmental statute, immunity (MCLA PA No The 7§ 3.996[107]) 691.1407; Ann 1969 Stat Rev states: § “Except provided, governmental agencies act as this otherwise liability gov- gov- from tort in all said shall be ernment ernmental shall not cases wherein immune engaged discharge agency is of a the exercise and herein, Except providеd as otherwise act function. restricting immunity modifying as be construed liability heretofore, immunity it existed the state from tort hereby added.) (Emphasis affirmed.” governmental statute, PA No title (MCLA T-3.996[101]) T-691.1401; Ann 1968 170 reads: Stat Rev § municipal corporations, “An make uniform the political subdivisions, agencies departments, state, function, injuries property when in a by persons negligence; liability; caused to define and limit such Mich 151 Dissenting only mean held to if 7 is Second, negligence, manner of the in the a nuisance operation municipal dump within of a torts or for such *10 the reach of nuisance label take it outside does the persons injuries caused to negligence?
I Michigan § Constitution 24 оf the Article 4, object, more than one embrace law shall states: “No expressed title.” There is in its shall be expressed object question 7 embraces § 24. The term in of Article 4, in violation its title scope clearly in broader in 7 is “tort” contained “negligence” in the title of embodied than the term Appeals and the trial the act as the Court for, judge intentional torts includes noted, tort liability based on well as those torts as strict negligence. problem “tort” the term whether
The difficult only narrowly to mean construed 7 should be by negligence broader so that it is no scope than the of the act. title dealing important note that we are not It is to whiсh is with common-law rule of judge-made con- a statute to rule. we have Here, upon and it is incumbent us as to sustain strue constitutionality by construction of the statute’s language preserve the intent enacting can if that manifested the statute properly be done. in a liability when define limit of the state proprietary function; purchase insurance to authorize liability; provide for protect against loss out of such paying defending against public officers and certain claims made sought repeal damages them; certain against and to awarded parts added.) acts (Emphasis of acts.” Maki ok East Tawas Dissenting Opinion by
When this Court has beеn confronted on other
statutory provision
occasions with the
situation
exceeding
scope
adopted
of its
we
title,
have
narrow
preserve
construction of the statute to
constitutionality.
statute’s
Company
Scott v. Alsar
(1953),
inWhat,
effect, these
that we
partial
invalidity by
must follow the rule of
con-
struing
provisions narrowly
an act’s
to conform to
the title where such construction
fulfill
works to
legislative
language
Ogle
intent. The
of Arnold v.
Company, supra,
particu-
Construction
664
663,
larly illuminating
point:
* * *
“
application
requires
The
of such rule
provisions
part
that the
2 of the workmen’s com
* * *
pensation
question
in
law,
shall be
here,
interpreted
as
within
of the title and not
repugnant
consequently
permitting
thereto, payment
compensation
disability
the
ing
for
result
injuries only.
legislature
from accidental
If the
in the enactment of said amendments had intended
part
change
such drastic
in
as2,
is now claimed was
Mich 151
[July-
Dissenting Opinion by
would have been
purpose
that such
I think
made,
terms
an
and unequivocal
in clear
expressed
effect. Likewise the
to that
statement
affirmative
would have been
injury’
‘accidental
reference
action
The
of such
from
title.
omission
deleted
was not the purpose
it
cogent proof
furnishes
part
require
from
strike
legislature
employee
not be
should
disability
ment
an acci
thereunder unless caused
compensable
* *
*
.”
only
injury
dental
here
inquire
reading
whether
It is
appropriate
for
carries
immunity
as7
giving
background leading
intent. The
legislative
out the
in
here
question
enactment of the
to the
statute
up
desired to re-
indicates that
clearly
perform-
for
in the
municipalities
store immunity
out
ance
functions.3 Torts
governmental
In Williams v. Detroit
this Court abolished
governmental
immunity
“municipal
common-law rule of
for
cor
the
porations”.
immunity
provided
complete
Prior
Williams the law
almost
agencies
government
all
of state and local
levels
exceptions
Judge-made
in
while
functions.
immunity
engaged
a
governmental body
rule
existed where
propriеtary function,
in a
maintained a nuisance or caused
direct
in
trespasser
construction or maintenance
connection with the
By legislation
exceptions for in
public
were also
works.
there
resulting
public
and from
juries
maintenance
roads
from defective
negligent operation
airplanes.
of autos and
Immunity
Baum,
Michigan,
Michigan
Governmental
State
1965)
author, Judge Baum,
(May
Journal
Bar
is
Judge
judge
Wayne
County
Circuit
and was the trial
Detroit
In we so heed to doing pay spirit of the stat- rule on utory severability states: “If of an any portion act or the application there- person any circumstances shаll be found to liability. County County tricts were immune from tort In Lewis v. Genesee (1963), 370 Mich this Court held that both Genesee County and the Genesee Board of Social operated Welfare which hospital agents a were government instrumentalities of state liability thus immune from for the acts hospital employees. reading contrast to this narrow “municipal the term cor- poration,” expanded judge-made this Court exception pro- prietary Mich County function. In Munson v. (1963), Menominee we leasing space state, held that in county a engaged proprietary in function, and, as negli- such was liable for gently maintaining space. Marysville In Carlisi v. city drowning was liable fоr the of two children by negligently failing post swimming signs by its water filtra- plant ground tion on the that a plant water filtration proprie- tary function. Myers in Then ground County this in Court shifted v. Genesee Auditor to expanded Mich 1 and the Williams umbrella counties, townships villages. include It was at this time and against the statute background legislature stepped that the in and enacted today at issue attempt case before us in an make uniform the tort of state agencies. and local important statute did things. three It established for governments state and engaged local functions restoring immunity thus municipal corporations; excep- it created types tions three namely activities defective maintenance of roads, negligent operation of motor vehicles and defective maintenance public buildings (which Williams); was the situation and third adopted it is judge-made government rule of no when a in a proprietary proprietary function but narrowly defined “any activity primarily profit”. conducted *13 385 Mich Opinion J. Dissenting invalidity shall not affect court, a sucb be invalid the remaining portions applications of the or por- given without the which effect invalid can be * ** (MCLA § [Stat application 8.5 .” tion Ann 2.216].) 1968 Rev II. finding jury’s question the whether
The next
in
the
maintained
nuisance
defendant
places
municipal dump
operation
manner
оf its
of
City
of the
East Tawas outside
during
negligent
which occur
performance
function.
of a
exception
judge-made
from the
Nuisance is
governmental immunity. The
rule of
common-law
question
alter
not
statute here in
does
governmental agencies
for nuisance. This con-
following
upon
language
7:
clusion is based
“Except
provided
this act
herein,
otherwise
as
*
* *
modifying
as
shall
be construed
* * *
it
existed heretofore
state
*
**
.”
Garavaglia (1952),
Denny
Mich v.
resulting
personal
in
this Court classified nuisances
injury
The first
three classes.
class consists
into
illegal conduct;
class
nuisances based
the second
bring
involves nuisances
on conduct intended
nuisance;
about
conditions
are
fact
negli
comprises
third
class
nuisances based on
gent
jury
conduct. Since the
found
that there
City
no intentional nuisance4
East
and since
per
garbage disposal
se nui
At one time
areas were held to be
neighbor
“piggeries” inundating
sances but these cases all involved
ing
of
disposing
piggery
lands
is a
with offensive odors. A
method of
Trowbridge
City
garbage by feeding
garbage
pigs.
v.
Lansing
588;
Albaugh
(1927),
402;
Abbott
253 Mich
v.
Garbage
Zehnder
dis
Kobs v.
In our most opinion recent on the subject nuisance exception immunity, Buckeye Union Fire Insurance Mich- Company v. igan 630, 635, Justice Adams, for a writing unanimous wrote: Court, “The Royston, Dahl Denny, and Young cases involved for personal claims injuries and are within that class of cases described as nuisance having and as to origin negligence which contributory is a defense.” negligence
Buckeye did itself, however, not involve a nuisance based on negligent conduct. Rather nuisance was a “condition” old, (p 636), open, dilapidated and unoccupied which building was fire hazard, declared dangerous ordered demolished by city. Any involved was negligence inciden- strictly tal and this Court denied immunity state, which had acquired tax property by (p 638). sale
The distinction between and Maki Buckeye clearly indicated by Justice Adams in speaking as follows Buckeye: only they
are nuisances
if
light
are unreasonable in the
of surround
ing land
Smith Ann
operation.
use and manner of
Arbor
When has treated action as a negli- our Court issue, *15 In gence matter, action. our latest on the opinion Young Groenendal, supra, 461, v. Justice Deth- mers wrote:
“A involved. Can denominat- labels is problem or a rather nuisance, defendants’ action inaction ing law than the as to negligence, change availability will the the defense of contributory negligence, peer court the label nature of the through causes of the to determine the damage question? We think the latter is and be the prevаiling should rule.”
If we failed to the label and treated peer through a a negligent separate nuisance on conduct as cause of action for which was there governmen- would immunity, tal we make the rule of statutory for a negligent immunity since nullity plain- tiffs would cast simply any negligence in the action City Maki v. of East Tawas Dissenting Opinion negligent form a nuisance based on conduct and governmental immunity. thus avoid By finding a that nuisance based on escape immunity provision conduct does the exception we7, do not terminate nuisance immunity rule. Nuisances which are based on illegal intentional conduct, conduct or such conduct, as that chаracterized for ultrahazardous, as imposed, strict in tort is constitute a class of nuisances which there is no tort immunity.
Arguably, plaintiff City could still hold the theory operating East municipal garbage dump Tawas liable that a proprietary ais function. immunity proprietary statute defines a function narrowly “any activity primarily conducted profit.” Although City charges Tawas East dump, quite clearly non-residents a fee to use the primary purpose dump health and for the ais place dispose safety providing one of a residents garbage pre-gov- of their and trash. Moreover, Curry Highland ernmental statute case, maintaining Park found garbage dump function.
III.
plaintiff,
On the
of this
find
facts
case we
suing
Leo Maki,
barred from
East
provision.
Tawas
virtue of 7’s
finding
operation
that a nuisance in the manner of
municipal dump
of a
is a nuisance
based on
absence of reasonable care which
within the
comes
*16
occurring
of 7’s
performance
in the
aof
function, let
it not be inferred that this Court is biased either
way
immunity.
tort
This
a case
T. J., PEOPLE v. BOURNE Opinion op the Court Manslaughter—Intent. Homicide — 1. though only manslaughter there is an killing may be even A kill, voluntary manslaughter involves a oftеn intent grade of the kill, the law reduces the intent but direct nature, looking frailty human because, at offense passions to excite the great provocations sufficient it considers beyond of reason. the control Murder—Malice—Jury Homicide — 2. Question. presence malice is charge murder, or absence of In a jury. question of fact to be determined
Concurring Opinion JJ. T. E. Brennan, Swainson, Manslaughter—Intent—Instructions—Words 3. Homicide — Phrases. may manslaughter Judge’s jury “in it instruction to any part that there was intent’’ on the not he shown was a correct statement to hill the victim defendants law as the manslaughter telling jury judge need [1, [2,4] [4] [5] [6] 40 Am Jur Am53 53 Am 40 Am Jur Jur Am Jur, Trial Jur, References 2d, Trial 2d, 2d, Homicide Homicide §§ Homicide 76. for Points §§ §§ 45, 50, 54-70. 509. in Headnotes 51.