« PreviousContinue »
Form No. 13623
(Precedent in Bryan v. State, 44 Ga. 328.) ' [(Commencing as in Form No. 10689.)12 For that the said Thomas Bryan, in the county and State aforesaid, on the third day of January, in the year eighteen hundred and seventy, did then and there unlawfully employ Mitchell Daniel, colored, the servant of one Philip West, during the term for which he was employed, the said Thomas Bryan knowing, then and there, that the said servant, Mitchell Daniel, colored, was then in the employment of said Philip West, and that his term of service had not expired, contrary [(concluding as in Form No. 10689). ]2
Form No. 13624. (Precedent in State v. Harwood, 104 N. Car. 725.)3 (Caption as in Form No. 10711.)]2
The jurors upon their oath present, that H. L. Harwood and L. B. White, late of the county of Wayne, on the 19th day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine, at and in the county aforesaid, unlawfully and willfully did entice, persuade and procure Will Humphrey, Sam Womble and Wayland Tutor, servants, who had heretofore contracted with the Wayne Agricultural Works — a company incorporated under the laws of North Carolina to serve said Wayne Agricultural Works as servants and laborers, which contract was then in force and subsisting, to unlawfully leave the service of the said Wayne Agricultural Works (the employers aforesaid of the said servants Will Humphrey, Sam Womble and Wayland Tutor), against the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.
And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do present, that the said H. L. Howard and L. B. White, on the day and year aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did harbor and detain in their own service Will Humphrey, Sam Womble and Wayland Tutor, servants of the Wayne Agricultural Works, a company aforesaid incorporated under the laws of North Carolina, which servants had theretofore left the service of the said Wayne Agricultural Works, their employers, against the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.
[(Signature and indorsements as in Form No. 10711.)]2
b. Intimidating Servant.
Form No. 13625.
(Precedent in Com. v. Dyer, 128 Mass. 70.)* (Commencing as in Form No. 10699, and continuing down to *)]a one Horace S. Andrews did unlawfully and wilfully intimidate, and did seek to intimidate, and by force and intimidation did seek to prevent from continuing in the employment of a corporation, to wit, the Weetamoe Mills, a corporation then and there duly incorporated under the laws of said Commonwealth and having its usual place of business in said Fall River, he the said Horace S. Andrews being then and there employed by and in the employment of said corporation as a spinner in the mill of said corporation; against the peace of said Commonwealth and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided.
1. This indictment was held sufficient. See, generally, supra, note 1, p. 63. See, generally, supra, note 1, p. 63. 4. It was held that a motion to quash
2. The matter to be supplied within this indictment was properly overruled. I will not be found in the reported case. The indictment was drawn under Mass.
3. Judgment of conviction in this Stat. (1875), c. 211 (Mass. Pub. Stat. case was affirmed.
(1882), c. 74, S 2).
[(Signature and indorsements as in Form No. 10699.)]1
Similar statutes exist as follows, to North Dakota. – Rev. Codes (1895), wit:
8 7660. Alabama. – Crim. Code (1896), $ 5511. South Dakota. — Dak. Comp. Laws
Connecticut, — Gen. Stat. (1888), § (1887), 8 6925. 1518.
1. The matter to be supplied within Georgia. - 3 Code (1895), $123 et seg.  will not be found in the reported case. 12 E. of F. P.-5.
MASTERS IN CHANCERY.
See the title REFERENCES.
By W. R. BUCKMINSTER.
1. MAIMING OTHERS, 66. 1. In General, 67.
a. Malicious Mayhem, 68.
b. Simple Mayhem, 71.
a. Castrating, 72.
b. Of Female, 73. 3. In Hazing, 74. 4. In Prize Fight, 74. 8. Under Circumstances which would Constitute Murder or Man.
slaughter if Death should Ensue, 74.
1. To Obtain Alms, 76.
CROSS-REFERENCES. For Forms of Indictments for Assault with Intent to Maim, see the title
ASSAULT, vol. 2, p. 228.
I. MAIMING OTHERS. 1
1. Requisites of Indictment, etc. — Gen. California. – Pen. Code (1897), S8 erally. - For the formal parts of an in- 203, 204. dictment, information or criminal com Colorado. — Laws (1895), c. 69. plaint in a particular jurisdiction Connecticut, — Gen. Stat. (1888), S8 consult the titles INDICTMENTS, vol. 9, p. 1401, 1405. 615; INFORMATIONS IN CRIMINAL Cases, Delaware. - Rev. Stat. (1893), p. 924, vol. 9, p. 768; CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS, SS 8, 9. vol. 5, p. 930.
Florida. - Rev. Stat. (1892), S 2395. For statutes of the various states relat- Georgia. - 3 Code (1895), SS 83-92. ing to mayhem see as as follows, to wit: Idaho. - Rev. Stat. (1887), ss 6577,
Alabama. — Crim. Code (1896), S 5095. 6578.
Arizona. — Pen. Code (1887), SS 297, Illinois. — Starr & C. Anno. Stat. 298.
(1896), c. 38 par. 351. Arkansas. – Sand. & H. Dig. (1894), SS Indiana. – Horner's Stat. (1896), S$ 1737-1744.
1. In General.
Iowa. - Code (1897), § 4752.
Wisconsin. - Stat. (1898), § 4372.
S$ 37, 38.
United States. – Rev. Stat. (1878), S Kentucky. — Carroll's Stat. (1899), § 1342, art. 58; $ 5348. 1165.
"Maliciously" means on purpose and Louisiana. - Rev. Laws (1897), SS with evil intent, but not necessarily 794, 795.
with intent to commit that particular Maine.-Rev. Stat. (1883), c. 118, $ 15. mayhem. Molette v. State, 49 Ala. 18.
Maryland. -- Pub. Gen. Laws (1888), "Maliciously,” in the Cali fornia stat. art. 27, SS 187, 188.
ute and indictments under it, does not Massachusetts. — Pub. Stat. (1882), c. mean with premeditated malice. A 202, $ 19.
malicious intent, formed upon the inMichigan. — Comp. Laws (1897), § stant, is sufficient. People a'. Wright, 11480.
93 Cal. 564. Minnesota, - Stat. (1894), SS 6462, Feloniously. - The word “ feloni. 6465, 6466.
ously "need not be employed to characMississippi. – Anno. Code (1892), SS terize the acts. State v. Absence, 4 1210, 1261.
Port. (Ala.) 397. Missouri. – Rev. Stat. (1889), 8 3488. Premeditated Design. – While neces
Montana. — Pen. Code (1895), SS 370, sary, under the statute, to aver that the 371.
act of mayhem was committed with Nebraska. – Comp. Stat. (1899), “premeditated design," the indictment 6664.
need not aver the manner in which Nevada. - Gen. Stat. (1885), 8 4606. the premeditated design was evinced.
New Hampshire. - Pub. Stat. (1891), Tully v. People, 67 N. Y. 15. C. 278, $ 16.
Intent. - In a prosecution for maimNew Jersey. - Gen. Stat. (1895), p. ing, under the Minnesota code, the in1063, $ 76.
jury must have been wilfully inflicted New Mexico. - Comp. Laws (1897), * with intent to injure, disfigure or $ 1082.
disable." State v. Hair, 37 Minn. 351. New York. - Cook's Pen. Code In the Ohio statute, which provides (1898), SS 206, 209, 210.
that certain injuries inflicted “with North Carolina. -- Code (1883), SS malicious intent to maim or disfigure" 1000, 1080.
shall be punishable, the word “maim" North Dakota. - Rev. Codes (1895), is used in its technical sense. There. S$ 7101, 7101-7109, 7341.
fore the offense should be characterized Ohio. – Bates' Anno. Stat. (1897), $$ as “with intent to maim" only when 6819, 6822.
the wound is a common-law mayhem. Oklahoma. — Stat. (1893), SS 2101, Otherwise, as in the case of biting off an 2104-2109.
ear, the offense should be characterized Oregon. — Hill's Anno. Laws (1892), in the indictment as “with intent to $ 1735.
disfigure." State v. Johnson, 58 Ohio Pennsylvania. – Pepp. & L. Dig. St. 417. (1894) p. 1269, § 444.
It is sufficient to charge in the indictRhode Island. — Gen. Laws (1896), c. ment the specific mayhem committed, 277, $ 6.
although the actual intent of the deSouth Dakota. - Grantham's Anno. fendant was to commit some other act Stat. (1899), SS 7724, 7727-7732.
of mayhem than that in which he sucTennessee. — Code (1896), SS 6447 ceeded. Molette v. State, 49 Ala. 18. 6450.
Cut Off or Disable. – While the speciTexas. — Pen. Code (1895), arts. 612- fication of the injury, in the statute, 617.
used the words "cut off or disable," Utah. – Rev. Stat. (1898), SS 4171, the word “destroy” was held to in4172.
clude “disable" and to be properly Vermont. - Stat. (1894), $ 4910. employed. Tully v. People, 67 N. Y. 15. Virginia. - Code (1887), S 3671. "Disable” refers to a permanent, not
Washington. – Ballinger's Anno. a mere temporary, disability. State v. Codes & Stat. (1897), 68 7047, 7048. Briley, 8 Port. (Ala.) 472.
West Virginia. — Code (1891), c. 144, Slit. - Where the words of the stat$9.
ute are "slit the lip," the words “bite
a. Malicious Mayhem.
Form No. 136 26. (3 Chit. Cr. L. (5th Am. from 2d Lond. ed.) 787.)" Essex, to wit. The jurors for our lord the king upon their oath present, that John Doe, late of Hatfield, in the parish of Chelmsford, in the county of Essex, laborer, and John Fen, late of said Hatfield, in
the lip" cannot be employed as equiva maim and disfigure him, and that lent. People v. Demasters, 105 Cal. Apollo Mairs with a knife which he 669.
held in his right hand, did on purpose "Mayhem" or "Maimed."-Although and of his malice aforethought, by the Oregon statute does not use the word lying in wait, feloniously cut off the "mayhem," yet that word may be used nose of the said William Wilds, with in the indictment to designate the of. an intent to disfigure and maim him; fense. State v. Vowels, 4 Oregon 324. and that David Mairs was present at But the crime may be charged by de- the time, and unlawfully and feloni. scribing the acts and injuries in the ously, knowing and being privy, and words of the statute, and it need not be criminally aiding and abetting the said alleged that the injured person was Apollo Mairs, to commit the said felony; “maimed." Guest v. State, 19 Ark. and that the said Apollo and David 405. Contra Chick v. State, 7 Humph. on the day aforesaid of their malice (Tenn.) 161. Nor need the word "may- aforethought, by lying in wait, did hem" be used in the indictment. State commit the felony aforesaid, unlaw. v. Absence, 4 Port. (Ala.) 397.
fully and feloniously, against the form That Party was Maimed or Disfigured of the statute in such case made and - An indictment under U.S. Rev. Stat. provided." (1878), 8 5348, which follows the lan. In State v. Vowels, 4 Oregon 324, an guage of the statute, need not allege approved form of indictment charges " that by reason of and means of the the defendant with the crime of may. facts alleged therein, the complainant hem, committed as follows: “The said was maimed and disfigured." U. S. v. Samuel Vowels, on the twenty-fifth day Gunther, 5 Dak. 234.
of December, 1870, in the county of Description of Injury. - An indict. Multnomah and state of Oregon, did ment for mayhem by biting off an ear purposely, maliciously and feloniously, need not state whether it was the right tear off the left ear of Joseph Taylor." or the left ear. State v. Green, 7 Ired. L. An indictment charging in a single (29 N. Car.) 39. This was not the case count that the defendant "unlawfully, at common law. Archb. Cr. Pl. 315. maliciously and feloniously, did slit,
Negativing Lesser Offense. — The Colo- cut off and bite off, the ear of John rado statute defining the crime of may- Tarwater, whereby the said John Tar. hem (Mills' Anno. Štat. (1891), $ 1210), water is maimed and disfigured," is contains a proviso reducing the crime not bad upon the ground of charging to a lower grade under certain circum- two offenses in one count. State v. stances. It is unnecessary, however, Ailey, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 8. in an indictment for the crime of the For other forms see 6 Harg. St. Tr. higher degree, to negative the circum- Appendix 60; West 103, 104; Cro. C. stances set out in the proviso. And A. 219; i Leach 55, 259; Cook's Code the same indictment may be used to Crim. Proc. N. Y. (1898), p. 415, No. obtain a conviction for the crime of the 148; Godfrey v. People, 5 Hun (N. Y.) lower degree. Foster v. People, I 369; Davis v. State, 22 Tex. App. 45. Colo. 293.
1. Coventry Act. — This form is drawn Precedents. — In State v. Mairs, 1 N. under the Coventry act, 22 & 23 Car, J. L. 518, the indictment, which was II, c. I. This act was passed in conseheld sufficient, charged that Apollo and quence of an assault upon Sir John David Mairs “after the 24th of June, Coventry by partisans of the king, who 1761, to wit: on the 24th of March, 1795, set upon him and slit his nose. The at upper Freehold did lie in wait, and deed was in retaliation for a speech in of their malice aforethought feloniously parliament in which Sir John Coventry and unlawfully did make an assault on criticised the profligate life of the king. William Wilds with an intention to As the law then stood, this assault was