
    William Morgan vs. The State of Mississippi.
    On the trial of a prisoner indicted under the statute of this state, (Hutch. Code, 960,) which provides that “every person who shall be convicted of shooting at another with the intent to kill, &c., such other person, shall be punished by imprisonment,” &c., it is necessary to prove the intent as laid in the indictment.
    If, therefore, A. be indicted for an assault with intent to kill B., the indictment will not be sustained by proof that A. made the assault with intent to kill C., and accidentally wounded B.
    Where, therefore, M. was indicted for an assault with intent to kill F., and the court instructed the jury, that if M. shot into the crowd with intent to kill any one, but not with the intent to kill F., and the shooting was not in necessary self-defence, they should find the prisoner guilty ; it was held that the instruction was erroneous.
    If the indictment be substantially correct, the judgment will not be arrested merely because it is inartificially drawn.
    In error from the circuit court of Lawrence county; Hon. Wiley P. Harris, judge.
    William Morgan was indicted in April, 1848, in these words: viz. “ That William Morgan, &c., on the first day of April, in the year of our Lord 1848, with force and arms, in the county aforesaid, in and upon the body of one James Foster, in the public peace then and there being, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did make an assault and battery, and with a certain single-barrel shot-gun, said shot-gun being then and there loaded with gunpowder and divers leaden shot, which he, the said William Morgan, in both his hands then and there had and held at and against the said James Foster, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did shoot, and that the said William Morgan, by means of the leaden shot aforesaid, discharged out of the shot-gun aforesaid, then and there by force of the gunpowder and shot sent forth as aforesaid, the said James Foster did then and there beat, bruise, and wound, and with the shot-gun aforesaid so loaded and charged, as aforesaid, the said William Morgan at and against the said James Foster, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did shoot, with intent him, the said James Foster, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, to kill and murder, contrary to the form of the statute, &c., &c-.”
    The jury found Morgan guilty. He moved in arrest of judgment for various alleged defects in the indictment; but the motion was overruled.
    On the trial the several instructions, set out at length in the opinion of the court, were asked; that for the prisoner refused, the others given; and exceptions were sealed by the prisoner-, who, after receiving his sentence, prosecuted this writ of error.
    
      G. P. Foute, for plaintiff in error,
    Cited Hutch. Dig. 960, ch. 64, § 33; 2 Stark. Ev. 739, (n) R.
    
      Swift, on the same side,
    Cited 1 Chit. Cr. Law, 282; 2 Stark. Ev. 740; 1 East, PI. Cr. 412, 413.
    
      D. C. Glenn, attorney-general for the state,
    Cited 2 How. (Miss.) Rep. 655.
   Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

The indictment in this case, upon which William Morgan, the plaintiff in error, was tried and convicted, was framed under the 33d sec. chap. 64, of the act of 1839; Hutch. Dig. p. 960. The first clause of that section creates and defines the offence with which the party was charged; and is in the following words, viz.: “ Every person who shall be convicted of shooting at another, with the intent to kill, maim, &c., such other person, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary, for a term not exceeding ten years.”

Upon the trial of the issue, the prisoner, by his counsel, requested the court to charge the jury, “ that, under this indictment, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that said defendant shot at Foster (the person on whom the assault was alleged to have been committed) with the intent to kill said Foster, before the defendant can be legally convicted.” This instruction was refused; whereupon the counsel for the state requested the court to charge the jury as follows:

1. “That if the jury believe, from the evidence, that the prisoner shot into the crowd, with the intention of killing any one in the crowd, but not with the intention of killing Foster; and that the shooting was not, at the time, in the necessary self-defence of the prisoner, they should find him guilty.

2. “ That if the jury believe that Morgan shot at Loftin, with a premeditated design to kill him, Loftin; and that said shooting was not in the necessary self-defence, although he missed Loftin and shot Foster, they should find him guilty, though he entertained no malice towards Foster.”

The correctness of these instructions presents the first question for the consideration of this court; and it is obvious that if the former be correct, the latter must be erroneous.

It is a universal principle of evidence, that a man shall be understood to intend that which he does, or which is the natural and necessary consequence of his act. Hence, in the absence of any explanatory testimony, we should be bound to presume that the prisoner intended to perpetrate the assault charged, upon the person of Foster; and to hold the offence as charged clearly made out. But the instructions asked for, as well by the state as the prisoner, clearly show that evidence had been adduced on the trial, which tended to establish the fact that Loftin, and not Foster, was the object of the assault. The instructions, then, did not propound abstract propositions, which could in nowise affect the verdict of the jury.

It is a well understood rule of law, where a general felonious intention is sufficient to constitute the offence, that it is no ground of excuse, where a party who intended to commit one felony has committed another. 2 Stark. Ev. p.416,5 Am. Ed.; East, P. C. 514.

In the case at bar, the malicious intent might be clearly inferred from the character of the weapon used; and if the alleged attempt had been consummated in the death of Foster, the prisoner would have been guilty of murder, although he entertained no malice as to him. This principle, however, is applicable only to cases where one felony is contemplated, and another committed. But the offence of which the prisoner stands convicted, is, we apprehend, no felony by the laws of this state. If, however, the offence here charged be in fact a felony, nevertheless this rule does not apply; for an essential ingredient of the offence created by the section of the statute above quoted, and charged in the indictment, is the specific intention of killing the person shot at. In the case of Jones v. The State of Mississippi, 11 S. & M. 317, this court expressly recognizes this construction of the act. They say this statute “ specifies the intent to kill the person shot at as one of the intents made essential to constitute the offence.” The same construction has been given by the English courts to the statute of 9 Geo. 4, ch. 31, sec. 11 and 12, which is similar to our own ; (Rex v. Holt, 7 Carr. & Payne, 518:) and we hold it to be correct.

If, then, the specific intention of killing the particular person alleged to have been shot at be “an essential ingredient of the offence charged in the indictment,” proof of a general felonious or malicious intention was not sufficient. It was incumbent on the state to prove the specific intent as charged. 2 Stark. Ev. p. 416, note S, 5th Am. Ed.; 7 Carr. & Payne, 518. The charge requested by the prisoner’s counsel was correct, and the court erred in refusing it.

An exception is taken to the decision of the court below, on the motion in arrest of judgment. But on looking into the indictment, we do not think it obnoxious to the objections insisted on by counsel. It is true that it is very inartificially drawn, and somewhat obscure. In substance, however, we deem it sufficient. But for the error above pointed out^ we reverse the judgment of the court below, and award a new trial in the circuit court of Lawrence county.  