wife,  resists  an  attack  made  on  him  by  tlie  husband,  and  kills
him  to  save  his  own  life,  is  guilty  of  manslaughter.^  In  Reed
V.  State  2  the  court  say  that,  "  How  far  and  to  what  extent  he
will  be  excused  or  excusable  in  law  must  depend  upon  the
nature  and  character  of  the  act  he  was  committing,  and  which
produced  the  necessity  that  he  must  defend  himself.  When
his  own  original  act  was  in  violation  of  law,  then  the  law
takes  that  fact  into  consideration  in  limiting  his  right  of
defence  and  resistance  whilst  in  the  perpetration  of  such
unlawful  act.  If  he  was  engaged  in  the  commission  of  a
felony,  and  to  prevent  its  commission  the  party  seeing  it,  or
about  to  be  injured  thereby,  makes  a  violent  assault  upon
him,  calculated  to  produce  death,  or  serious  bodily  harm,  and
in  resisting  such  attack  he  slays  his  assailant,  the  law  would
impute  the  original  wrong  to  the  homicide,  and  make  it  mur-
der. But  if  the  original  wrong  was  or  would  have  been  a
misdemeanor,  then  the  homicide  growing  out  of  or  occasioned
by  it,  though  in  self-defence  from  an  assault  made  upon  him,
would  be  manslaughter  under  the  law."  The  reason  of  this
rule  is  thought  to  be  that  a  man  cannot  avail  himself  of  a
necessity  Avliich  he  knowingly  and  wilfully  l)rought  on  him-
self ;3  that  is,  it  will  not  afford  him  justification  in  law.'*

Sec.  154.    Killing  one  in  an  attempt  to  kill  another.  —

Where  one  person  is  killed  in  an  attempt  to  kill  another,  the
killing  of  whom  would  have  been  manslaughter,  the  law
transfers  the  degree  of  guilt  and  makes  the  homicide  man-
slaughter. Thus,  where  one,  in  a  mutual  combat  or  scufHe,
by  accident  shoots  a  third  person,  the  offence  is  manslaughter.^
In  Commonwealth  v.  Flanigan  *^  the  accused,  in  a  quarrel
at  an  election  pool,  shot  at  his  antagonist  with  a  pistol  l)ut
missed  him,  and  in  the  scuffle  which  ensued,  another  barrel
was  discharged,  which  killed  a  boy  standing  near  by.  The
court  held  that  this  was  voluntary  manslaughter.
