Mayhem

In criminal law. The act of unlawfully and violently depriving another of the use of such of his members as may render him less able, in fighting, either to defend himself or annoy his adversary. 8 Car. & P. 167; 4 Bl. Comm. 205. The cutting or disabling, or weakening, a man's hand or finger, or striking out his eye or fore tooth, or depriving him of those parts the loss of vjhich abates his courage, are mayhems at common law. 4 Bl. Comm. 205. The offense has been extended by statute to these and other injuries. See 87 N. C. 509; 70 Iowa, 505.

In Criminal Law. The act of unlawfully and violently depriving another of the use of such of his members as may render him less able, in fighting, either to defend himself or annoy his adversary. 8 C. & P. 167. See Com. v. Newell, 7 Mass. 247. “Malheming ia when one member of the commonweale shall take from another member of the same, a naturall member of bis bodie, or the use and benefit thereof, and thereby disable him to serve the commonweale by his weapons in the time of warre, or by his labour in the time of peace, and also dlminisbeth the strength of his bodie, and weaken him thereby to get his owne living, and by that means the commonweale is in a sort deprived of the use of one of her members.” Pulton, De Pace Begia, 1609, fol. 16, t 68. One may not innocently malm himself, and where he procures another to malm him, both are guilty; Co. Litt 127 a; People v. Clough, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 351, 81 Am. Dec. 303. The cutting or disabling or weakening,a man’s hand or finger, or striking out bis eye or foretooth, or depriving him of thoae parts the loss of which abates his courage, are held to be mayhems; Chick v. State, 7 not held to be mayhems at common law; 4 Bla. Com. 2X)5; but see State r. Abram, 10 Ala. 028. The Injury must be permanent; State V. Briley, 8 Port. (Ala.) 472; State v. Harrison, 80 La. Ann. 1329; and If inflicted on an assailant in self-defence, it is not mayhem; Hayden v. State, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 546. These and other severe personal injuries are punished by the Coventry Act, which is common law and also has been re-enacted In most of the states; 1 Hawk. P. C., Curw. ed. 107, § 1; Ryan, Med. Jur., Phil. ed. 191; and by act of congress. See Act of April 30, 1790, 8. 13; Act of March 3, 1825, s. 22; Rev. Stat. § 1342, art. 58 (when committed by a soldier In time of war, etc.); State v. Abram, 10 Ala. 928; Adams v. Barrett, 6 Ga. 404; Com. v. Newell, 7 Mass. 245; State V. Glrkln, 23 N. C. 121; Scott v. Com., 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 224; Com. v. Lester, 2 Va. Cas. 198; People v. Wright, 93 Cal. 564, 29 Pac. 240. Mayhem was not an offence at common law in Massachusetts, but only an aggravated trespass; Com. v. Newell, 7 Mass. 248; but at the early common law it was a felony punishable by the loss of member for member, a punishment disused later; see id.; 1 Mc Cl. Cr. L. § 432. Maim as used in the statutes is not equivalent to mayhem but to mutilate; Mc Cl. Cr. L. § 432. See Physical Examination. As to loss of a member in accident insurance, see Loss.

v. Maihem.

In criminal law. The act of unlawfully and violently depriving another fend himself or annoy his adversary. 4 Bi. Comm. 205. Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or disables the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem. Pen. Code Cal. § 203.

8 Violently depriving another of the use of a member proper for his defense in fight.' Violently depriving another of the use of euch of his members as may render him the, less able, in fighting, either to defend himself or to annoy [disable] his adversary. !<• A battery, attended with the aggravating circumstances that the party injured is forever disabled from making as good a defense against future external injuries as he otherwise might have done. Among the defensive members are not only arms and legs, but a finger, an eye, a foretooth, and some others; not, however, a jaw-tooth, the ear, or the nose, the loss of which does not weaken. The injmy is also a crime, being an atrocious breach of the king's peace, and tending to deprive him of the aid of a subject." See DiTBESS. 1 Gregory v. Kanouse, 11 N. J. L. 6S (1829). ' Louisville & Nashville E. Co. v. Brooks, 83 Ky. 188 <1885). » Kentucky Central E. Co. v. Gastineau, 83 Ky. 187 (1885). •Fame Ins. Co.'s Appeal, 83 Pa. 405 (1877); 30 Leg. Int. 60. » Greene v. Eobinson, 41 Conn. 470 (1874). • Wemple v. Stewart, 22 Barb. 160 (1866). ' The Shelbourne, 30 F. E. 52 (1887). 8F. mehaing, abatement of strength from hurt. See Haih. •3B1. Com. 121. '"4 61. Com. 205. " 3 Bl. Com. 121; 4 id. 205; 1 id. 130; 8 Port. (Ala.) 472; 10 Ala. 928; 62 Cal. 542; 5 Ga. 404; 7 Mass. 345; 17 Wend. 352; 3 Binn. 595; 6 S. & E. 224; 4 Wis. 168; 2 Bish. Cr. L. § 1001; Whart. Cr. Pr. § 2C0, n; E. S. § 1342, art. 58; 8 C. & P. 167. 1

v. Maihemium. Mayn,/A A hand. v. Main.

The offence of violently depriving a person of any limb, member, or organ useful in fighting, either offensive or defensive; also, the personal injury which may have this effect is called a mayhem, or a maim. See Maim. Cutting off a finger, putting out an eye, breaking out a fore-tooth, are commonly mentioned as examples of acts constituting mayhem. A mere disfigurement or a temporary disability is not enough. Mayhem imports a permanent inJOTy; a temporary disabling of a finger, an arm, or an eye is not sufficient to constitute the offence. State v. Briley, 8 Port. 472.

crimes, isthe violently depriving another of the use of such of his members as may render him less able in fighting either to defend himself or annoy his adversary; and therefore the cutting or disabling, or weakening a man’s hand or finger, or striking out his eye or foretooth, or depriving him of those parts the loss of which abates their courage, are held to be mayhems. But cutting off the ear or nose or the like, are not held to be mayhems at common law. 4 BI. Com. 205. These and other severe re-enacted in substance in several of the states. Ryan’s Med. Jurisp. 191, Philad. ed. 1832; and by congress, vide act of April 30, 1790, s. 13, 1 Story’s Laws U. S. 85; act of, of March 3, 1825, s. 22, 3 Story’s L. U. 8. 2006.