57 Kan. 673 | Kan. | 1897
By way of a plea in bar the defendant alleged that he had previously been charged with the same offense-, before a justice of the peace and upon a trial had been adjudged guilty of assault and to pay a fine of $5 and costs. He alleged that the fine and costs had been paid and that he had been discharged from custody.
We think the testimony was competent. It would not have been admissible for the purpose of proving a record of the conviction, but it was proper to give to
Complaint is also made of an instruction as to the offense punishable by section 42 of the Crimes Act, in which it was contended the Court eliminated the question of intent. This contention is not justified. The Court had previously instructed the jury with reference to the offense defined in section 38, charging that the criminal act must have been done with malicious intent. In the instruction with respect to section 42 the Court stated that to convict under that section it was unnecessary to prove that the assault complained of was made with malice aforethought. The jury were properly charged upon the different degrees of manslaughter, including the essential ingredient of intent.
The testimony appears to be sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment, and after a careful examination of all the specifications of error we find no reason for disturbing the judgment; it will, therefore, be affirmed.