¶1(nem. con.) was of opinion, that the offence, as stated in the indictment, was not within the Virginia Act of 1792, p. 178. And Cranch, C. J., thought that biting could pot be called cutting; that an ear cannot be “disabled” within the meaning of the statute; nor is the ear such a member as was intended by-the statute, which had enumerated the tongue, the eye, the nose, and lip.
4 D.C. 98
United States v. Askins
Decided November 15, 1830
Indictment for biting off’ the ear of John Taylor, with intent to disfigure him. Verdict, guilty. The defendant was called, and not appearing, his recognizance was forfeited at the present term. moved the Court to strike out the forfeiture, and permit him to move in arrest of judgment. The Court (Thruston, J., absent,) was of that opinion, and overruled the motion. The defendant having personally appeared, his counsel, Mr. Heiuitt, was permitted to move in arrest of judgment.
Decided 1830-11-15