The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1905-02-24

person, because no one knows when he
may be called upon to decide for himself
how far he may proceed in the case of
wilful trespass on his premises.
JUDGES CHARGE.
l desire, gentlemen, to call your at
tenion especially to section 7143 of the
statute above quoted which l will now
re-read. Statutes re ready You will
see that the words 'or any trespass or
other unlawful interference with real or
personal property in his Lawful possession,
provided the force or violence used is
not more than sufficient to prevent such
offence, are used. What do these words
mean? DO they mean that an unarmed
person committing a simple trespass up
on the property of another may be shot
down, ifneeds be, to prevent such tres
pass? l say to you unhestatingly, no.
In other words no authority is found in
this section for the use of force and viol-
ence in preventing torcible trespass ex-
cept such rs is Sufficient to prevent
such trespass."
What force then in any given case is
sufficient to prevent a trespass? Each
case, OF course, must depend upon its
own facts and as applied to the facts IN
this case, when you find by the evidence
beyotad reasonable doubt wnat such
facts are. charge yor, gentlemen, that
wheif it is said that man may rightfully
use as much force as is necessary for the
protection Of his person or property, it
should be recollected that this rule Is
subject to this most important rnodifca-
taon, that he shall not, except in extrex1e
cases, endanger hH1nan lie or do great
bodily harn,- Itis not ever right of per
son, and Still less of properly, that can
lawfully be asserted, or every wrong,
that may tightfully beredressed by ex-;
treme remedies. Thee is reckessness
"a wantdn disregard of humanity and
social duty-in taking, or endeavoring to
take, the life of a fellow being, in order
to save oneself FROM a comparatively
slight wrong-mhich is essentially wicked
and which the law abhors. Yeu MAY
not kill to prevent simple trespass be-
cause you Can not otherwise effect yuur
object though the object sought to be
effected, to-~it: preventing forcible
trespass, is right. You can only kill to
save life or limb or prevent great crime
when the danger of the commission of
such crime is imminent
While the purpose OF preventing a
trespass may be righttul yet 1t is not of
such paramount necessity as to justify "a
resort to desperate means. 1t is clear
that if one man deliberately kills another
to prevent mere trespass on his pro.
perty whether that tresrass could or
could not be otherwise prevented, he is
guilty of murder II, indeed, he had, at
first, used moderate force and this had
been returned with such force that his
cWn life had been endangered, and then
he killed from necessity, it would be ex-
,cusa5le homicide not because he could
take life to save his property, but he
mig ght take the life of the assailan; to save
his own. Ii other words, you can see
from this statement of the Law that there
IS a mingling OF the question of self de-
fence in the matter of protecting per-
SONS property from trespass and to the
instructions with reference to self defence
l refer YOU to be considered in connect
ion with this and the whole to be taken
together.
COURT NOTES.
Cavalier county pays the bill eventual
" but Pembina advances the cash. The
expense account will naturally be heavy.