The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-11-25
Homicide by Means of Spring Guns.

A telegram from Fort Scott announces
the killing of n thief by means OF gun trap
which was set by WILLIAM MCCLELLAN,
merchant residing at q small town ha'neo
Walnut, in Kansus. Having lost consider
able property from his store, Mr.. MCCLELLAN
arranged spring gun SO as 10 DO us
charged upon the person OF any burgiarious
intruder. About midnight on saturday ne
heard an explosion. and going To the spoO
found the burglar MORALLY wounded. BE-
fore dying the man snid he was from feo-
ria, but refused to give his name.
Homicidcs by means of spring guns arc
rather rare in modern times. There Is
good deal OF curious and interesting law Ill
the Older English law books on the subject
of this form of killing. BY statute passed
in the timo os GEORGE w. the settlng Oh
| spring guns or man traps designed TO de-
stroy human life or iniiict grievous bodily
harm was declared to be nisdcmeanor'
but traps set for the purpose of destroying
| noxious animals or "cngincs set from sun
set to sunrise in dwelling houses for the
| protection Of the same. were eHcepteu from
the prohibition of tho law.
In the statutes of this State we have not
| been able to find any express reference 10
| spring guns except 80 far us wild animals
are concerned. Tho general game law.
however. expressly prohibits tho setting OF
ANY trap, spring gun, or other device NJ
any artificial salt lick or other place for the
purpose of trapping or killing wild deer"
The late FRANCIS WHARTON, IN his we'll
known treatise on the criminal law as adj
ministerial in this country. states the COM
mon law rule on this subject to be that u
man cannot use Instruments of destruction
for the dcfcnce of his property in any case
in which he would not bc justified in taking
life with his own hand for the same pur-
pose In other words he cannot do through
the agency of mechanical means in his
absence that which IL would not be lawful
to do himself il present at the scene. - But
to prevent burglary he can use such instru-
mcnts: and homicide through them of
burglar would be justified" This state
mcnt of the law seems to show that the use
of the spring gun in the Kansas case was
not illegal.
The rule as laid down by Mr.. WHARTON
finds its strongest support in a decision of
the Supreme Court OF Connecticut in which
that tribunal distinctly held that the plac-
ing of spring guns in shop Tor its defence
would be justified if II burglar who was try
ing to break in during the night time should
be killed by them: but the court added that
while the right to take life in defence OF
property as well as OF person was natural
| right, the law limited its exercise to the
prevention of forcible and atrocious crimes.
In this matter of spring guns. however. 1T
is to be observed that the law makes an i'm
portant distinction between burglars and
mere trcspassers. If the owner of promises
sets IL gun trap and it kills n burglar. he
incurs no legal liability; but if it happens to
kill or main some person who is cndeavor-
ing to enter his promises without any
fclonious intent, the case is very different.
Indeed. it has been decided in Iowa that Il
trrspnssnr who entered Il vineyard FOR the
purpose Of stealing grapes and was injured
by the discharge of n spring gun which had
been set there by the owner. was entitled
to recover damages for the injuries inflicted
upon him And this is in accordance with
the rule already stated: for the owner of
the fruit, if himself present. would not lie
justified in shooting n thief who was steal
ing from his orchard or vineyard in the
daytime.