Find Ancestors

If someone was guilty of feloniously killing and slaying a man, why on earth would they only get 6 months a 1 day labour? if they were found guilty of manslaughter in 1891?

any theories appreciated, maybe I should try and find a newspaper clipping.

How long had they been held awaiting trial?
Were there "extenuating circumstances"?
Did they know people in high places?
Were they ill and the sentence was likely to exceed life expectancy?
Was there a plea for leniency for some reason?
Where have you got the information from re the sentence - has that been mis transcribed in the first place?

if you give details someone may be able to track down something for you.

Since manslaughter was (and presumably still is) a felony, anyone who committed manslaughter must have feloniously killed and slayed someone, so the sentence all depends on the circumstances of the case, and could range from an absolute discharge thru to life imprisonment.

I found it on the prison records on findmypast after finding said person as a prisoner in 1891 census. He got into a brawl with a guy and repeatedly stabbed him with a knife, it looks like the guy later died from wounds. and he was found guilty of manslaughter, 6 months and 1 day labour, he is out of prison and married by 1901 with 2 kids.

there are a couple of newspaper articles I have now found too and it looks like a fight happened at a public house after game of dominoes, the deceased was looking for a fight it seems, but he defendant still stabbed him repeatedly in the face and neck causing his death, and he as I mentioned was found guilty of manslaughter, I just find it odd it was on 6 months.

The prisoner is William Parker born 1870 Whitehaven, Cumberland

It really doesn't make sense why he only got 6 months.

A couple of things that could have come into it are provocation and self-defence.

I don't know about the law back then but I suspect that a jury especially might think that a man was provoked beyond reason and could not be expected to control his emotions.

Possibly the accused was attacked first and started out defending himself justifiably and then went too far. (To defend yourself you are only allowed to use as much force as necessary to avoid injury or death and you should not intend to kill the other person.)

If the victim was 'looking for a fight' it could have been either of these. Just guessing :-)

Looking at the others being tried on the same day, all of the sentences seem to be lenient, one charge for someone else was manslaughter and they were found not guilty. Maybe the Judge was having a "nice" day?

But would he still be found guilty of manslaughter if they felt he acted in self defense?

Especially when the word feloniously were used in the record.

It just doesn't quite add up to the sentence. Maybe the prisons were already full and they just didn't have the capacity to deal with everyone.

You can start out acting in self-defence and go too far.

He might have been justified in stabbing once to make the man stop battering him, for instance, but not to keep stabbing. This would affect the sentence a judge might think someone deserved, if the man who caused the death started out being the victim of an attack.

'Feloniously' just distinguishes an accidental or justified killing from a wrongful one. It would be part of the definition of the offence since accidental killing is not a crime, for instance.

I googled 'feloniously killed' just now and the FBI has a page called 'officers feloniously killed' (in the line of duty) and that would be to distinguish them from officers killed in car crashes or fires or such.

edit, this could help

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/felonious

felonious adj. referring to an act done with criminal intent. The term is used to distinguish between a wrong which was not malicious, and an intentional crime, as in "felonious assault," which is an attack meant to do real harm.

as compared to if you are running to catch a bus and knock someone down :-)