Under some statutes a specific intent is an essential element of this offense,143 but not so under other statutes, the accused being held responsible for the probable consequences of his act.144 But where the injury done, such as the putting out of an eye, was not the probable result of the act, such for instance as the throwing of a stone at another, there is no offense.145

140 4 Blackstone Com., 205; 1 East.

P. C, 293;Underhill's Cr. Ev., Sec 359 141 3 Blackstone Com., 121, 205;

State vs. Johnson, 58 Ohio St., 424. 142 Godfrey vs. People, 63 N.Y., 209. 143 State vs. Jones, 70 Iowa, 505;

State vs. Clark, 69 Iowa, 178;

Terrell vs. State, 86 Tenn., 523;

State vs. Ma Foo, 110 Mo., 7. 144 Terrel vs. State, 86 Tenn., 523;

State vs. Clark, 69 Iowa, 196;

Underhill Cr. Ev., Sec. 359. 145 State vs. Bloedow, 45 Wis., 279;

State vs. Cody, 18 Or., 506.

If, however, the injury was inflicted maliciously with the intention to disfigure, the offense will be mayhem, though the act was done suddenly while in conflict with another.146

The intent may be inferred from the act which does in fact disfigure another, in the absence of evidence showing a different intent.147

Under some statutes premeditation is not an essential element of mayhem,148 but under others it is. The statute of New York defining this offense uses the terms "premeditated design" and "on purpose;" and these are held to be essential in the description of the offense.149