If the act be unlawful it is murder. As if A, meaning to steal a deer in the park of B, shooteth at the deer, and by a glance of the arrow, killeth a boy that is hidden in a bush, this is murder; for that the act was unlawful, although A had not intent to hurt the boy, nor knew not of him. Thus if B, the owner of the park, had shot at his own deer, and without any ill intent had killed the boy by the glance of his arrow, this had been homicide by misadventure, and no felony. So if one shoot at any wild fowl upon a tree, and the arrow killeth any reasonable creature afar off, without any evil intent in him, this is per infortunium, for it was not unlawful to shoot at the wild fowl; but if he had shot at a cock or a hen, or any tame fowl of another man’s, and the arrow by mischance had killed a man, this had been murder, for the act was unlawful. If a man, knowing that many people came in the street from a sermon, threw a stone over a wall, intending only to fear them or to give them a light hurt, and thereupon one is killed, this is murder; for he had an ill intent, though that intent extended not to death, and though he knew not the party slain (Marlbr. c. 25; 3 Inst. 56, 57). All crimes have their conception in a corrupt intent, have their consummation and issuing in some particular fact, which, though it be not the fact at which the intention of the malefactor levelled, yet the law giveth him no advantage of the error, if another particular ensue of as high a nature. As if A, having malice to B, strikes at him and misseth him and kills C, this is murder in A (9 Rep. 81; H. P. C. 50). So Bracton says, ‘Si quis unum percusserit, cum aliam percutere vellet, in felonia tenetur’ (lib. 3, fol. 155). And if one lays poison to kill B, and C takes it and dies in consequence, this is murder in him that laid the poison: for, In criminalibus sufficit generalis malitia intentionis cum facto paris gradus (Bacon, Max., 65). The malice intended to one makes the accidental death of another to be murder (Wood’s Inst., 2nd ed., 353). _Hub._ Stand back, Lord Salisbury, stand back I say: By heaven, I think my sword’s as sharp as yours: I would not have you, lord, forget yourself, Nor tempt the danger of my true defence; Lest I, by marking of your rage, forget Your worth, your greatness, and nobility. _Big._ Out, dunghill! dar’st thou brave a nobleman? _Hub._ Not for my life: but yet I dare defend My innocent life against an emperor. _King John_, Act iv. Scene 3. Excusable homicide is se defendendo, or where one has no other possible means of preserving his own life than by killing the person who reduces him to such a necessity, for, Vim vi repellere licet, modo fiat moderamine inculpatæ tutelæ, non ad sumendam vindictam, sed ad propulsandam injuriam (I. Inst. 162a; Wood’s Inst., 2nd ed., 359).