New-York tribune., 1879-10-15
QUESTIONS IN TIE BLAIR TRIAL.

|
There is a probability that the Blair trial
| may result in Il sharper and clearer judicial
explanation of the right to Use firearms in
defence OF ones person and premises than has
been given for long time. The irry may
very likely put aside, az untrustwortlIy, the
declarations attributed to Blair by Armstrong;
dying declaration. and the testimony OF the
witness Dyer. which indicated malice prepense.
and consider the case from the point Of view
| of the simple, substantial facts about which
| there has not been serious dispute. Suppose
| il to be conceded or asccrtained that Arm
| strong, being in Bar's employ az cOachman,
misbehavcd so as to give cause for dismissal {;
that Blair told him to leave: that Armstrong
met the notice in what was from one point OF
view turbulent defiance. from another rightful
refusal to leave until his wages should be paid !;
that Blair, meaning no more than to enforce
| his rights as he understood them, went to
the house for pistol as means of protec-
ton; that he returned. and without desiring
or threatening to kill Armstrong. resumed
insisting that Armstrong should surrender the
keys and depart that he became satisfied.
ard with good grounds, from Armstrong;
acts and demcanOr, that the latter intended
shooting, and that to anticipate this and dis
able Armstrong from dong it, he gave what
was not intended to he, though it was,
| fatal wound. What arc the relative rights
of employer and servant through the course
of controversy like thisP The question is
one on which it may well be hoped that the
trial will throw light; for in varying circum-
| stances and forms it is constantly liable to
recur.
AS respects the point of self defence, cOnsid-
| cred by itself, the course of thought in the
! law courts has long been adverse to any POSI-
tion that man may leave an Gtfray to get
weapon, and return and use it upon claim OF
! self defence. The right 10 shoot an assailant
has been deemed limited to the absolute ne
cessity from which it springs it terminates
the instant when that necessity ends. Cne
who has got safely away from conflict
should stay away, and seek some legal: means,
rather than violence, for settling the contro-
versy. BY returning and rosuming the
aniay he falsifes the plea of self defence !;
| except in rare cases where the fight Is en-
tirely over and is begin again without his
| fault. THIS is the doctrine of past decisions
Yet there Is no doubt that the right of defence
has grown som ,what in favor, in late years.
The claim to eject an unlawful intruder,
considered alone, presents questions of inter
est. There is "A general understanding that n
householder may shoot Il burglar. But how
far does such right cxtend7 Can it be as
serted toward any one who wrOngfully insists
upon remainng after he has been rigbttully
ordered to leave 7 4 customer visits "a store,
buys goods and disputes the change offered.
A tenant or boarder denies that his month is
| tiiciep Ept
to the conductor. Either one ought we viii
SAY, to Yield in the dispute, leave peaceably
mt the demand OF the rightful owner, and sue
at law for the money due him or the damages
sustained. But suppose he will not may he
he shot like burglar. or must the owner, in
his turn keep the peace and seek redress III
the courts Certainly a servant who has
nghtfuliy entered the premises, and Is re-
naming in the assertion of right stands
on n different footing, even If his claims
arc not tenable. from midnight crimi-
nal. Perhaps it will be said that u
householder has the right gently to expcl
an intruder, and to use such force as is
necessary in doing thus, even IL it Is required
in overcoming his resistance. Probably. But
shooting him does not promote his departure;
it tends to disable him from going.
| Quite likely, in the Blair case questions
such as these must bc weighed ia connection
with others. The jury may perhaps reduce
their view of the facts TO something ike this:
that Blair supposed, sincerely, that it was
right and necessary for him To resume the pos
session of the barn, which he had temporarily
ntrusted to Armstrong, and that he might
meet dangerous resistance in endeavOrng to
do so; that he armed himself to repel any
such danger and that he fired when he be-
heyed that resistance which imperillcd his
own if, was seriously threatened. The ele-
ments of such position as this are involved
in thousands of controversies recurring con-
stantly between employers, hOusehoders or
managers of property and servants, visitors
or tenants, and the measure of ones rights in
such cases is well worthy of attention.