State,^  on  the  trial  of  an  infant  fourteen  years  of  age,  for
murder,  it  appeared  that  his  father  and  the  deceased  were
engaged  in  a  common  fist  fight,  no  weapons  being  used  or
threatened  on  either  side,  and  while  so  engfasred  a  brother-in-
law  of  the  prisoner  actually  having  hold  of  his  father,  trying
to  separate  them,  the  bystanders  not  otherwise  interfering  or
attempting  to  do  so,  the  prisoner  ran  up  and  shot  down  his
father's  antagonist,  without  warning  and  without  the  slight-
est necessity  for  so  doing.  These  facts  were  held  amply
sufficient  to  justify  a  verdict  of  "guilty  of  voluntary  man-
slaughter."

In  case  of  mutual  combat,  to  reduce  the  offence  of  taking
life  from  murder  to  manslaughter,  it  must  appear  that  the
contest  was  waged  upon  equal  terms,  and  no  undue  advan-

Jones  (N.  C.)  L.  392  (1859)  ;  Cope-  State,   24   Tex.    App.   47    (1888)  ;    1

land  V.  State,  7  Hiiiiipli.  (Tenn.)  479  Hale  P.  C.  4o3 ;  1  Hawks  P.  C,  c.  31,

(184ti)  ;    Spearman  v.  State,  23  Tex.  §  29  ;  1  Whart.  Cr.  L.  (9tli  ed.)  482.
App.  224  (1887) ;   State  v.  McDonnell,  "  Tate  v.  State,  40  Ga.  148  (1872).
32  Vt.   491   (1860);  United  States  v.  3  People  v.  Sullivan,  7   N.  Y.  396

Minfco,  2  Curt.  C.  C.  1   (1854)  ;  Desty  (1852).
Cr.  L.  §  128  1);  Eost.  295;  1  Kuss.  on  ^  State    v.   Partlow,    90    Mo.    608

Cr.  (5tli  Eng.  ed.)  811.  (1880)  ;  s.c.  4  S.  W.  Kep.  14.
1  Tate  V.  State,  46  Ga.  148  (1872);  &  1  Houst.  Cr.Cas.  (Del.)  58(1858).
State  r.  Underwood,  57  Mo.  46  (1874);  c  32  Qa.  49G  (1861).
B.C.  1   Am.  Cr.  Kep.  251 ;   Melton   v.
SEC.  149.]


MANSLAUGHTER.
