Commonwealth v. McAfee

An indictment for manslaughter by striking the deceased upon her head, and throwing her npon the floor, is sustained by proof that the defendant struck her on the head with his hand, and that she fell upon the floor and was killed by striking on a chair in her fall. A man has no right to beat his wife, although she is drunken or insolent; and if death ensues from such a beating, he is guilty of manslaughter at least.

Indictment for the manslaughter of Margaret McAfee, charging that the defendant, at Boston, on July 3,1871, “her, the said Margaret, did feloniously and wilfully strike, kick, beat, bruise and wound in and upon the head and body of her,, the said Margaret, and her, the said Margaret, did throw upon the floor, thereby by the said striking, kicking, beating, wounding and throwing upon the floor, then and there giving to the said Mar. goret divers and many mortal strokes, bruises and wounds, of which, said mortal strokes, bruises and wounds the said Margaret then and there died.” At the trial in the superior court for Suffolk, before Pitman, J., a motion to quash the indictment was overruled, and need not now be stated. It appeared that the deceased, who was the defendant’s wife, was drunk; that he struck her with his open hand one blow on the cheek and one about the temple ; and that she fell upon the floor, and did not speak afterwards. Medical witnesses testified “ that she had, by falling on a chair most probably, or by some external force, been affected by concussion of the brain and effusion of blood on the brain, and that thus her death was occasioned.” The defendant requested the judge to instinct the jury “ that the husband had a legal right to administer due and proper correction and corporeal chastisement on his wife; that it was for the jury to say whether he had so done in this case, and whether his conduct was not lawful under this rule, upon the evidence; that the evidence would not sustain the indictment, as the latter did not allege a death by a striking of the defendant, which said striking caused a fall, which fall, under the circumstances, resulted fatally, by reason of her condition arising from intemperate habits; and that, even if the defendant had exceeded his lawful authority as husband, if the jury should find that the two blows were with the open hand, and were not such as the husband had any reason to believe, and did not believe, could produce any serious injury, he could not be convicted, although the death of his wife was hastened by the shock received in falling from the effects of the slap or slaps on her cheek by him.” The judge refused so to instruct the jury, and gave them the following instructions: “ Upon ar.y view of the facts in this case, which the testimony, taken most strongly for the defendant, will allow, there was, as matter of law, no justification for the blows given by the defendant to the deceased. If the unlawful blows of the defendant caused death, either directly, or by causing the deceased to fall upon file floor by the force and effect thereof, and «0 death thereby ensued, then the defendant is guilty of manslaughter.” The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions.