majority"> Devin, J.

Tbe defendant assigns error in tbe instructions given by tbe court to tbe jury as to manslaughter, on tbe ground that it eliminated tbe question of self-defense, but, upon a careful examination of tbe testimony offered in tbe trial as shown by tbe record before us, we agree with tbe learned judge below that there was no evidence that tbe fatal shooting was done in self-defense, or that it resulted from accident or misadventure. We think tbe defendant is unable to escape tbe implication from her own testimony that sbe was guilty of manslaughter. Sbe testified that sbe pointed tbe rifle at bim and “reckoned” sbe pulled tbe trigger; and in response to tbe question why sbe sbot bim sbe replied, “I don’t know.” S. v. Stitt, 146 N. C., 643, 61 S. E., 566; S. v. Limerick, 146 N. C., 649, 61 S. E., 568; S. v. Parker, 198 N. C., 629, 153 S. E., 260; S. v. Wall, 218 N. C., 566, 11 S. E. (2d), 880; G. S., 14-34. “At common law and by Rev., 3632 (now G. S., 14-34), one who points a *596 loaded gun at another, though without intention of discharging it, if the gun goes off accidentally and kills, it is manslaughter.” S. v. Coble, 177 N. C., 588, 99 S. E., 339.

None of the exceptions noted by defendant to the ruling of the court as to the admission of testimony can be sustained.

No error.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress