Thе defendant, originally charged with second-degree murder, was found guilty by the trial judge sitting without a jury of manslaughter, MCLA 750.321; MSA 28.553, and was sentеnced to a prison term of from 5 to 15 years. He appealed as of right and is free on bond pending the оutcome of this appeal.
The story begins on the evening prior to the date of the death which gave risе to defendant’s convic *567 tion. On that evening defendant was in the bar owned by the deceased, one Herman Frye. At that time defendant had difficulty remaining awake and was escorted to the door by one of the barmaids; whereupon defendant is reputed to have made certain threats to Mr. Frye that he was going to kill him.
Early the next evening Mr. Brown, while being simultaneously engaged in a game of pool and the drinking of beer at Mr. Frye’s bar, was accused of cheating by his playing partner. When defendant threw the cue stick down on the table, Mr. Frye entered the picturе. Frye told defendant not to wreck his place, placed the cue stick in the rack, turned out the light abovе the table, and returned to his position behind the bar.
Defendant followed Frye, uttering words of profanity and exprеssing the opinion that Frye was carrying a gun. Defendant, upon reaching Frye assaulted and struck him about the head. Frye managed to retreat into the kitchen, where he located a .38-caliber revolver in a cigar box оn the top of the refrigerator. A struggle for possession of the gun began in earnest. Brown, a trained combatаnt, grabbed for Frye’s wrist, and during the struggle two shots were fired, one entering the ceiling and the other entering the body of Frye. Whilе the employees and customers were evacuating the premises, a third shot was fired, which entered the wall. Eventually Brown succeeded in gaining possession of the weapon and started to walk out. Frye, although woundеd, secured another gun from the kitchen and fired at the defendant as he was leaving.
The court after listening to the testimony made the following determination:
“Gentlemen, I find as a fact in this case that the defendant, Mr. Brown, indeed, wаs the aggressor. *568 I find as a fact that the defendant, Mr. Brown, struck a blow to the deceased, Mr. Frye, prior to the timе that Mr. Frye drew the gun. I further find that the fact in this case that the fatal shot occurred at a time when the defendant and the deceased were struggling over the gun and not at the time when the defendant had the pistol in his possession.
“I find the defendant guilty of manslaughter.”
Thе defendant takes the position that the shooting was an accident. Defendant specifically does nоt claim that the shooting occurred as a result of an act of self-defense. Further, he asserts that the finding of fact on the part of the trial judge was insufficient to support a conviction of manslaughter, in that there was no proof that the homicide resulted directly from the assault. For authority he relies heavily on
People
v
Scott,
The Court in Scott, supra, at 558 said:
“In criminal prosecutions there must he a more direct causal connection between the criminal conduct of the defendant and the homicide charged than is required by the tort liability concept of proximate cause.”
There is no quarrel whatever with this conclusion. See also
People
v
Starkey,
We find further elucidation of this rule in 3 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law & Procedure (2d ed), § 1667, p 2012:
*569 “If, in doing an act which would have been a misdemeanor at common law, a person causes the death of another, he is guilty of manslaughter, and the same is true of offenses which are made misdemeanors by statute. As has been pointed out, however, the mere doing of an act prohibited by statute, which in itself is not inherently or naturally dangerous to human life, will not support a charge of mаnslaughter.”
We quote also from
People
v
Barnes,
“There seems to be no conflict in the decisions where the respondent is violating some statute, and where his manner is negligent and careless; the courts in such cases uniformly hold that he is guilty of manslaughter, if the death of sоme other person is the result.”
Therefore, we can conclude that the defendant cannot he found guilty of manslaughter while committing an unlawful act if death ensued as the result of the negligent acts of a third party or from а cause which is not directly connected with said unlawful act; hut that the defendant can be found guilty of manslaughter when the act was inherently or naturally dangerous, or the illegal activity was carried on in a negligent and careless manner.
Barnes, supra; People
v
Harris,
As noted above, the trial court found that defendant was the aggressor and the fatal shot ocсurred while defendant and the deceased were struggling over the gun. Common knowledge dictates that a loaded revolver in the hands of two fighting combatants becomes a dangerous instrumentality which is capable and likely to bring about disastrous consequences. In accordance with the power granted this Court by G-CR 1963, 820.1(6) to draw inferences *570 of fact, we find that the manner in which defendant carried on the fight was not only negligent and careless in nature, hut аlso, under such circumstances, was “inherently and naturally dangerous to human life”.
Since death resulted from a shot fired during the continuing illegal assault upon the deceased, while defendant was engaging in an act which was inherently and naturally dangerous to human life, the trial court properly found defendant guilty of manslaughter.
Affirmed and remanded to Detroit Recorder’s Court for execution of the sentence.