Page:Black's Law Dictionary (Second Edition).djvu/758

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

Maleficla prapositil distinguuntur. Jenk. Cent. 290. Evil deeds are distinguished from evil purposes, or by their purposes.

MALEFICIUM. damage ; tort; injury.

Intheclvillaw. Waste; D13. 5. 18. 1.


LIALESWORN, or MALSWORN. Forsworn. CowelL MALFEASANCE. The wrongful or un-

just (louig of some act which the doer has no right to perform, or which he has stipulated by contract not to do. It differs from "misfeasance" and "non-l'easauce," (which tities sec.) See 1 Chit. Pr. 9; 1 Chit. Pl. 134; Dudiey v. Flemingsburg, 115 Ky. 5, 72 S. W. 3'27. 60 L. R. A. .375, 103 Am. St. Rep. 253; (‘oite v. Lynes, 33 Conn. 115; Bell \. Jesse- lyn. 3 Gray (Mass) 311. 63 Am. Dec. 741.

MALFETRIA. In Spanish law. Offense. White, New Recop. b. 2, tit. 19. c. 1, § 1.

MALICE. In crixninal law. In its legal sense. this word does not simply mean ill will against a person, but signifies a wrongful act done intentionally, without just cause or excuse. Bronlage v. Prosser, 4 Barn. & C. 2.35

A conscious violation of the law (or the pl'0lll[>tlLlg of the lnlnd to commit it) which operates to the prejudice of another person.

Alwout as clear, conlprehenslve, and correct a definition as the authorities atford is that “malice is a condition of the mind which shows a heart regardless of social duty and fatally heat on mischief, the existence of which is inferred from acts committed or words spoken." Harris v. State. 8 Tex. App. 109.

“llalice,” in its common acoeptation. means ili mil towards some person. In its legal s_cnse. it appiios to a \n'rmgfui act done intentionally, without legal justilication or excuse. Dunn v. I__luii. ' 3 .

A man may do an act wiiltully, and yet he free of malice. But he cannot do an act mail- ciously without at the same time doing it willfully. The malicious doing of an act icniudcs the willful doing of it. Malice includes intent and will. State v Robbins. (JG Me. 328.

Ixau. B; . . . 369; State v. Avrry. 113 M0. 475. 21 S. W 193; State v. Witt. 34 Kan. 488. 8 Pac. 76. : State v. Waiker, 9 Hnust. lDel.) 464, 33 At]. 227; ton v. State. 32 Tex. 61 Com. v. Chance. 174 Mass. 245. 54 N. E. o 1 75 Am. St. Rep. 306.

In the law of libel and slander. An evil intent or motive arising from spite or lli will: personal hatred or ill will; culpable recklessness or I willful and \\-lnton disre- gard of the rights and interests of the per-

son detamed. ML-Donald v. Brown. 23 546, 51 At]. 213. 58 L. R. A. 768. 91 St. Rep. 650; Hearne v. De Young, 132 C 357. 64 Pac. 576; Cherry v. Des Mo Leader. 114 Iowa. 298, 86 N. W. 32' L R. A. 855. 89 Am. St. Rep. 365; Minter Bradstreet Co., 174 M0. 444, 73 s. W.

—Actna1 malice. in fact.

malice inferred from acts; malice imputed law: malice which is not shown by din proof of an intention to do injury malicc,) but whi h is iuferentially e by the necessarily injurious results of the shown to have been committed. . . rigan, 9 Houst. 3159. 31 Ati. lI).‘:‘.'1_ Hogan v. State, 3' \ s 238: -ihluell Raymond, 2 Abh. Prac (1 . Y.) 196 Expre malice. Actual mal mniice In fact deliberate intention to commit an injury. evi- denced by external circumstances Sparf v. 156 U. S. 51, 15 Sup. Ct -13. 39 L. Ed . Farrer v. State, " . T1; Singleton v. State. 1 Tex. App. 50'; Jones v. State, E Ga. 594; Wynne v. Parsons. 57 Conn. ‘H. Atl. 362; Howard v. Sexton, 4 N. I. 161 Helhener v. Crossan, 4 Pennewill {Del.) 38. 55 AtL 2%.-—-General malice. General malice is wickedness, a disposition to do wrong. a “binck and diahuiical heart. regurdiess of social duty and fatally bent on mischief" Neal v. Nelson-. 117 N. C. 393, 23 S. E. 425. 53 Am. St. Rep. 590 Brooks v. Jones. 33 N. C. 2G0.—Imp].ied malice. Malice lnferrtd by legal reasoning and necessary deduction from the res grain or the conduct of the pany. Malice inferred from any deliberate cruel act comznittetl by one person against nnolller. liow~ over sudden. W'hart. Hon). 38. What is called “gt-neral malice is often thus inferred. Sparf r. U. 156 U. S. 51 31) L. i‘:i. 343; 413. .'L Sup. Ct. S


State v. \Iason. 54 State v. '

used as the equ nlent of "cnustI'ur:tivv mn . or "maiire in law.‘ Humnhries r. Park , 52 5(lJ.— aforethought. In the n of ‘‘murder. malice aforethnluzht ex- is s whore the person doing the act which causes death has an intention to cause dratb or grievous bodily harm to uuy per-son_ (whether the person is actu-iily kiilerl or not.) or to mm- mit any felony whatever, or has the knowledge that the ant wiil probably cause the death of or griemus bodily harm to some person. al- though he does not dtsire it or evl-n Wlshfis that it may not be caused. Staph Cri . Dis. 144: 1 Russ. Crimes, 6-11. The words ma'ce afnrethought" long ago acquired in law a settlorl meaning. somewhat ditforent from the popular one. In their legal sense they do not import on actual intention to kill the ileceasefl. Tho idea is not spite or malevolence to the deceased in particular, but evil design in generni, the dictate of a kt-6|. dspmved, and malignant heart; not prcmrditated personal hatred or revenge towards the person kiilerl. but that kind of unlawful purpose which. it , must produce nnsr-hief. H. 39 . 6 . Rep. And 9 U. S. 510, 16 Sup. CL , State v. Eiskn, (‘>3 Conn. t|_ 572; Nye v. People. 35 Mich I): v. Box-getto, 99 Mir 336 58 N v People. 10 v. . . S. 492. 17 Sun. C. 1 V . Kota v. People, 136 Ill 65 Hogan v. State. 36 Wis. 2-1 .— c. 1 Express or actual maiiro. Railnav o

v. Behee, 2 Tax. Civ. App. 107, 21 S. W. 384