Even where one does an act merely in sport, he will be held criminally liable in case the act was done in a careless or reckless manner; as where a boy in sport throws a stone at another expecting him to dodge, and the stone hits him, inflicting a wound, this is such an act that the law holds the person liable criminally for the probable consequences of his act.33

There can be but little distinction, except in degree of criminality, between a positive intention to do a wrongful act and an indifference whether the wrong is done or not.34

30 Beckham vs. Nacke, 56 Mo., 546;

Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 2471. 31 Belk. vs. People, 125 111., 590. 32 Belk. vs. People, 125 111., 590;

State vs. Grote, 109 Mo., 345;

1 McClain, Cr. Law, Sec. 130; 8 Am. & Eng. Ency., 289 (2nd Ed.). 33 Hill vs. State, 63 Ga., 578; 8 Am. & Eng. Ency., 289 (2nd Ed.).

But no doubt where intention or guilty knowledge is an ingredient of the offense, such intention or knowledge must be alleged and proved; but actual, positive knowledge is not required; it may be presumed from the circumstances of the case. For every one is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts, and the intent may be inferred from acts as well as from words and declarations.35

So where a specific intent is an essential element of a crime it must be set out in the complaint or indictment and established on the trial.