Sutton v. Bonnett
| Citation | 16 N.E. 180,114 Ind. 243 |
| Decision Date | 24 March 1888 |
| Docket Number | 13,171 |
| Parties | Sutton v. Bonnett |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
From the Pulaski Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
W Spangler and H. A. Steis, for appellant.
N. L Agnew and B. Borders, for appellee.
Two lads, John and Thomas Sutton, were in the fields hunting; the former, who was the elder, had a gun, the latter a large pistol. They were joined by the appellee, a lad about their own age, and through their persuasion he went with them. Thomas gave him the pistol, and he discharged it. John reloaded it, and the lads then walked toward another part of the field, the appellee carrying the pistol. There was no ill-will between the boys, but they were on friendly terms. At the time the pistol was discharged by the appellee the hammer, when placed at full cock, remained in its place. As the boys walked along the appellee cocked the pistol; the hammer did not stand; he then let down the hammer, again cocked the pistol, turned around, took his thumb from the hammer, and as he did so the pistol was discharged. The load struck Thomas Sutton in the face, very severely injuring him. At the time the pistol went off the appellee did not see Thomas, who had changed position.
We have given a synopsis of the evidence adduced on the part of the appellee. This evidence was contradicted in some particulars by that of the appellant, but it is only necessary to mention one of the particulars in which it was contradicted, and that is this: The appellant's evidence tends to prove that the pistol was pointed at Thomas by the appellee.
We have no doubt that if the appellee had purposely pointed the pistol at Thomas he would be liable, even though he did it without any intention to injure him. Our statute makes it an offence to purposely point a pistol at another, and a violation of this statute is an actionable wrong. Lange v. State, 95 Ind. 114. But where the weapon is accidentally, and not purposely, pointed at another, the statute does not apply.
The first instruction asked by the appellant and refused leaves out the element of purpose, and was properly refused.
We agree with counsel for the appellant that a defendant who negligently shoots another is liable. We can not, however agree that the jury were not properly instructed on this point; on the contrary, our examination of the instructions has convinced us that if they are subject to criticism at all, it is because th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sutton v. Bonnett
...114 Ind. 24316 N.E. 180Suttonv.Bonnett.Supreme Court of Indiana.March 24, Appeal from circuit court, Pulaski county; J. C. Nye, Judge. Action to recover for injuries caused by the discharge of a pistol held by defendant. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.W. Spangler and H. A. Steis,......