Gilmore

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellant was indicted for murder.

On the trial, the jury rendered a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, which was afterwards set aside on the prisoner’s motion, and a new trial ordered.

On the second arraignment of the prisoner upon the indictment, he pleaded a former acquittal.

The questions presented are:

1st. The prisoner having been convicted of manslaughter, can he, on a second trial, be compelled to answer to the charge of murder? And,

2d. Admitting that he cannot, whether the prisoner can be again tried for manslaughter, inasmuch as the indictment against him is for the crime of murder ?

A conviction for manslaughter is an acquittal of the charge of murder, and the verdict, though general in in its terms, must, by legal operation, amount to an acquittal of every higher offense charged in the indictment than the particular one of which the prisoner is found guilty.

The reason is obvious: if such were not the case, the party, after undergoing punishment for manslaughter, might be ar *377 raigned and tried again for murder, notwithstanding hp had * been compelled to answer this charge upon [377] the first trial, and the jury had…