People v. Chappell

Respondent was convicted under an information charging him with maiming one Daniel Eorrest by discharging a loaded pistol, pointed and aimed intentionally, but without malice.

Upon the trial the testimony tended to show that the weapon was used either in self defense (which was indicated by strong proofs), or with a criminal intent, and maliciously. The court, among other things, was asked to charge that if the act was done with malice, the defendant could not be convicted under the information. This was refused, and the court said, in response to the request: “I refuse so to charge you. The…