The sun., 1891-08-12

committed in the lawful defence OF the
slayer when there is reasonable ground to
apprehend design on the part OF the per-
son slain to do some great personal injury
TO the slayer, and there is eminent danger
Of such design being accomplished. Another
definition OF justiflabe homicide makes kill
ing legal when committed by public officer
necessarily. In overcoming actual resist
auce to the execution Of the legal process
mandate, or order Of q court or officer, or In
the discharge Of legal duty" OF course, .
person situated rs this policeman was on
Sunday evening In the liquor saloon Of tho
man whom he killed Is bound to exercise oil
the discretion and judgment possible under
tho circumstances, and to avoid tho use OF
his pistol rs long as seems practicable to
protect himself without It. Although tho
law. as we have seen, justifles homicide
when committed In overcoming actual re-
sstance to tho execution OF legal process, 1t
is only In cases where the killing is necessary
to overcome such resistance; and q cnse can
scarcely occur In which 1t can be necessary
to kill in order to overcome resistance unless
the lifo OF the officer himself is threatened
and is in actual or apparent danger.
Tho Brooklyn case to which we refer Is
one In which tho police officer appears to
have acted with commendablo good sense
and an evident appreciation Of his duty.
Policeman PATRICK CAssERLY of the Elev-
enth precinct attempted to arrest mon
named SULLIVAN for intoyication and dis
orderly conduct In the street. The mnn re-
sisted arrest, and a crowd OF young fellows
gathered about tho officer and threatened
him, and ho was unable to dispcrse the
crowd In order to take his prisoner to the
police station. He drew his revolver. This
had no effect, SO he fired three times, taking
care, however. to shoot up into the air above
tho heads of tho bystandors. The pistol
shots frightened the gang of rough young
mon who had shown disposition to rescue
SULLIVAN and the policeman was able to
tnke him into custody without further DIM
Guilty. Assuming that the attitude Of the
crowd was sufficiently threatening to mako
some forciblo demonstration necessary on
the part Of the officer. he seems TO have dono
the right thing.
Tho Ohio case, II tho facts are correctly
reported, is the plainest OF all. The law Of
that State forb'ds tho use OF seines in GER
tain streams. Deputy Game Warden L. X.
VI buy loD, WALL q VIC
covered DAVID McILyA1N. with four other
persons, drawing seine In Mad River about
midnight. Ono OF the party struck the
warden heavy blow over tho eye with
stone. und MCI1vAIS drew q revolver and
at once began firing upon the warden and
his companion. The warden. naturally
enough returned the fro. and his second
shot inflicted fatal wound. Under the cir
cumstancos he could hardly have acted diff
ferently unless he was willing to be shot
down in his tracks by man who wns
plainly violating the law. and who evidently
proposed to resist arrest to the death. The
police authorities at Dayton seem to have
taken this view, as they refused to detain
the warden when he offered to deliver him
eelf into custody upon his return to that city.
Wo may remark that there is a vast diff
ference between such cases as We have con-
sidercd in this article and those cases Of
"self-defence," SO called, In which the per-
son slain is inferior in physical strength to
the slayer. and wholly unarmed.