The Independent. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1895-1905, 1895-07-13
rHe 1Aw or aN1r.DNrENon.
A Man Not g blig4d to Retreat When
About to Be Attacked on His
Own Premises

About to Be Attacked on His
Own Premises
WASHINGTON, June 9.--One of the
las cases decided Ivy the Supreme
Court OF the United States previous
to adjournment was thatof he appeal
of B abe B ard from the judgment
OF conviction and sentence to eight
years imprisonment for manslaugh-
ter in Judge Parker's court for the
Western District Of Arkansas. The
opinion of the Supreme Court re-
versing the judgment below was an
nounced by Mr.. Justice Harlan, who
has fled the views Of the court in
full with the clerk They are inn
portaut in that they set forth the
law Of splf-defence. Beard had
hree btotbers-in law, young men,
who came 0 his house in his absence
with the expressed determination OF
driving away COW, ownership OF
which WAS claimed by one of them
aud also by Beard, after the latter
had warned them not to come.
While they were drputing with Mrs.
B ard her husband returned home.
Que OF he brol hers, Will Jones, adj
vanced upon Beard, who | ad gun
in his hands, aud made motion as
# TO dfaw revolver from his
pocket, which he had grasped in his
hand Beard struck him over the
head, inllictiug a wound from which
he died. Gu tr al Judge Parker in-
structed tue jlry III regard TO the
law OF self d fence, to the eff ct that
Bead wa, compelled by that law
to avoid danger at Jones's hauds by
getting out OF the way if he could,
aud that the only place where he
need not retreat further was his
dwelling house.
This charge, Jus ice Harlan says,
was Objectionable in point of law on
several grounds. He says:
The Court, several times in its
charge, raised or suggested the in
q'riry whether Beard was in the law
full pursuit Of his business-thst is,
doing what he had right to do
when, after returning home in the
afternoon, he went from his dwelling
house to a part OF his premises near
he orchard fence, just outside of
which his wife aud the Jones
brot hers were engaged in dspute
the former end avoring to prevent
the COW from being taken away, the
latter try wing to drive it off the
premises, Was he not doing what
he had the legal right to d., when,
keeping within his own premises
and near his dwelling be j lined his
wife, who was in dispute with
others, one of whom, as he had been
informed, had already threatened to
take the COW away or kill him7 We
have no hesitation in answering this
question in the affirmative.
In our opinion he court below
erred in holding that the accused,
while on his premises, outside OF his
dwelling house was under legal
duty to get out OF the way, il he
could, OF his assailaut, who, accord
ing to one view OF the evidence, had
hreateDed to kill the defendant,
aud in execution OF that purpose
had armed himself with a deadly
weapon, wit h that weapon coucealt d
upon his person went to he defend
antr pr-mi ses, despite the warning
Of the latter to keep away, and by
word and act indicated his purpose
10 attack the accused. The defend
ant was where he had the right to
be when the deceased advanced
upon him in threatening manner
aud with deadly weapon; aud if
he accused did not provoke the
assault and had at the time reason.
able grounds 20 believe aud in good
faith believed that the deceased
Intended to take his life or to do
him great bodily harm, he was not