362,  370;  Stat.  Crimes,  §  141;  ante,
§  112;  post,  §  121.  Now,  the  Massachu-
setts statute,  in  like  terms  with  the
Michigan,  is:  "If  a  mortal  wound  is
given,  or  other  violence  or  injury  in-
flicted, or  poison  is  administered,  on  the
high  seas,  or  on  land  either  within  or
without  the  limits  of  this  State,  by  means
whereof  death  ensues  in  any  county
thereof,  such  offence  may  be  prosecuted
and  punished  in  the  county  where  the
death  happens."    p.  4,  5,  in  the  report  of

62


Macloon's  case.  If,  therefore,  a  citizen
of  Massachusetts  inflicts  a  blow  on  any
person,  outside  the  limits  of  the  State,  it
is,  by  the  principles  of  our  law,  an  "  of-
fence "  against  his  own  State,  and  it
would  be  punishable  at  the  common  law
but  for  the  want  of  a  cqurt  having  ju-
risdiction over  it.  Post,  §  121.  This
statute  removes  the  difficulty,  and  gives
a  jurisdiction  in  cases  where,  and  only
where,  death  follows  within  a  county.
But  for  an  Englishman  to  beat  another
Englishman  on  board  a  British  merchant
vessel  is  no  "  offence  "  with  us ;  and,  by
the  very  terms  of  the  statute,  such  a  case  is
excluded.  Still,  if  this  were  not  so,  the
principle  stated  by  Story,  J.,  as  above
quoted  —  a  principle  sound  in  itself,  and
everywhere  followed  by  the  courts  (see
post,  §  121)  —  would  lead  to  the  same  re-
sult. A  similar  course  of  reasoning  ap-
plies to  the  British  statute,  which  differs
not  greatly  from  this  one.  At  all  events,
no  just  ground  appears  for  construing
the  Massachusetts  statute  less  favorably
to  defendants  than  the  British.
