Odger's English Common Law

EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE. 303
able chastisement on his child or scholar, provided the latter
be old enough to appreciate correction, and no greater harm
is inflicted tban is called for by the occasion. 1 Not only must
the chastisement be moderate, but it must be administered
with a reasonable instrument. To inflict excessive correction
is unlawful. Thus a schoolmaster was convicted of man-
slaughter who beat a scholar for two hours with a stick so
that he died. 2
(d) Again, where death results from a lawful surgical
operation undertaken with the consent of the patient and
performed with due care on the part of the surgeon, it is
excusable. In the case of a young child, the consent of the
parent or guardian must be obtained. An operation per-
formed without proper consent would be unlawful, and the
surgeon performing it would strictly be guilty of man-
slaughter if death resulted, however much skill and care be
employed.
To this rule, however, there is one possible exception. If
an injured man were brought into a hospital unconscious, or
in such a condition that he was incapable of exercising a
reasonable discretion in the matter, and the surgeon honestly
believed on good grounds that an operation was necessary in
order to save the man's life, it is submitted that the surgeon
would commit no crime if in such a ease he operated without
the man's consent and death ensued.
(e) Homicide is also excusable if a man, whilst engaged in
a lawful sport or playing a lawful game with due care and
without any intention to hurt, unfortunately kills another.
Football, 3 cricket, wrestling, boxing with gloves, and fencing
with buttoned foils are lawful games. Again, a man commits
no crime if he accidentally kills another while shooting at a
mark or target in a place adapted for that pastime and under
circumstances which render such shooting permissible. 4 A
prize-fight is not a lawful game, nor is a boxing match, even
with gloves, if conducted in a manner known to be dangerous
i R. v. Griffin (1869), 11 Cox, 402.
2 R. v. Hopley (I860), 2 F. & E. 202.
' R. v. Bradshaw (1878), 14 Cox, 83.
4 But see the ease of R. v. Salmon and others (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 79, fully set out
jittt?. p. 2!>t>.