Milford chronicle., 1905-03-03
POPULAR TALKS ON LAW.
Defence Of Ones Hsuse.

IN our last talk we discussed Seli-Deience.
Akin to the right OF man to defend himself
against an unlawful attack is the right to de-
fend his-home. The constitutions Of Twenty
seven Of the states provide that one has
natural right to protect his property. "a
mans house." says the old law, "is his cas-
tle.and he may take such steps as are reason
ably necessary, in the defence thereof against
unlawful intrusion" Indeed the law regards
an assault on a mans habitation for felo-
nious purpose as an assault on his person or
on the person OF an occupant.
One is never bound 10 retreat from his
house. and in general may even kill TO pre-
vent forcible and unlawful entry. The ex-
ercise OF the right to protect ones home must
not exceed the bounds, ,hOwever,of defence or
protection so that the kind Of force that enc
NAV use depends somewhat on tho nature OF
the attack and the purpose OF It. Where an
entry is by force and the purpose OF Il is to
commit a felony, killing, II Unnecessary TO pre-
vent Il is excusable aBd any one ia the house
even a lodger, is Justified In the protection OF
the house nv any means found necessary.
one who has reasonable fear that felony
/ is intended. need not wait until the assailant
gets withis the house, but may meet the in
truder en- the threshold aud use means fatal
10 the assailaut II necessary to protect him
self nom death or great bodily injury. lfthe
assailant however. can be repelled otherwise
and the one assailed does not use any other
means Of defence, the latter Is not justified in
killing. II the intruder hees the person as
sailed is not justified in pursuing and COM
mitting an injury.
lis held that the term "hause" includes a
1lace Of business or rented room occupied
az . bedroom. Where one is attacked in the
ward the courts hold that he shOuld before
taking life retreat into the house, II there is a
reasonable opportunity so 10 do. Where one
has peaceably eatered the house the owner or
occupant is not justified in using force to ex-
mel him. without first demanding or request
inc that he leave; but where the entry was
nv force preliminary request is not neees-
sarv before using force In ejecting the inttu'
der. Where one or more persons assemble
about a house and threaten TO break in, the
oeeupapt is not justified in shooting until DC
gives warning .,
A man was held to be justified In killing
u here on returning home at night he found
the door fastened against him, broke 1t open
entered and in a fight that ensued killed the
Intruder II has been held that the act Of en-
terlng at a window In the night viii not ex
ense the use OF deadly weapon without mrs
warning the intruder to desist. Where
bosse is occupied In violation oflaw as 10
gambling purposes, the occupant or owser
eanuet Justify force used in putting out a per
son from gambling room for disorderly be
havior.
Decisions are pretty well agreed that a MAJ
canpot defend HIS real property, other thai
hi. dwelling, to the extent of taking lifei bu
in a Michigan case building thirty-six zee
awav from the dwelling, il which the own
er's servants slept was declared to be par
ofthe dwelling. As to personal property,on
D may not take life in defending his right'
S ave where the effort is to deprive him Of hi
property by a forcible felony such as roooer
or burelary.-Wm. c. Sprague, President
The sprage Correspondence School Of Law