River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1913-11-20


need not retreat if 10 do so would
pls &c him in more precarious pos
ition, but he must retreat even
though to do so would not appar-
emily improve his position. There
a some states in which the courts
hold that a person attacked may
stand his ground under practically
all circumstance s, but such a rule
is rather exceptional.
It is probably a familiar rule that
a person attacked need not retreat
4rther than his own premises. One
attacked in his own home, or in his
own office is under no obligation to
retreat, but may stand his ground,
no matter how threatening the at
tack, and while so standing his
ground may kill his assailant if
necessary 70 save his own life or TO
avoid great bodily harm, or the
commission of a felon within his
premises.
One may not only defend his own
person with the degree of force
necessary to resist the attack, but
he may defend the persons of the
members of his family as we'll
Thus father may defend his son,
and a son his father. A master
may defend his servant, and vice
versa the servant his master.
The right of defense extends 10
property as we'll. One may defend
the property which he lawfully has
in his possession. The property
need not be his own, it is enough
that he has it rightfully within his
custody. Jenkins rented a horse
from Dale's livery. While riding on
the horse Jewett stopped him and
demanded the horse. Jewett was a
creditor of Dale's and said that the
debt being long overdue he intend
ed to enforce his rights. He en-
deaYored to take the horse away
from Jenkins by force. Jenkins re-
sisted with force and succeeded in
retaining possession of the horse.
Jewett sued Jenkins for assault and
battery for his use of force in re-
sisting the effort to secure the
horse. The court ruled that Jen-
kins was justified in defending the
property rightfully within his pos
session and having used no greater
force than necessary in its detense
was not liable to Jewett, whom he
had in no way wronged.
In defending ones own premises
from invasion there are certain re-
quirements if the right of self de-
Tense is to be exercised. One may
not forcibly eject another from his
premises merely because he is a
trepaSSer. The treSpaSSer must
first be ordered to depart, and only
in the event that he refuses may
force be used to eject him. The tres
passer must first be given the op-
portunity TO depart peaceably. If
the trespasser h as come upon the
premises violently or contrary to
express command of the owner he
may be resisted and elected with
out demand that he depart. In
neither case, however, may more
force than is necessary be used for
the removal of the trespasser, else
the right of defense will be exceed
ed.
There are certain other legal JUS
tifications for the application of
force in a manner that would other
wise amount to assault and battery.
Certain individuals have authority
over others of nature which per-
mits the use of force as a means of
punishment or coercion. The par
ent has the right to give moderate
chastisement to minor child with
out being guilty of assault and bat
terry. So, too, a guardian standing
in the place of a parent, may pun
ish a child in his care. An official
in charge of public institution
usually has the right to enforce his
authority by moderate chastise-
ment. Generally a master has no
right to chastise his servant, but
the master of ship, being in an
unusual position, may enforce his
authority by the use of force on the
persons of his subordinates.
One is justified in applying force
to one who is engaged in criminal
conduct, for the purpose of lettering
him. One who notices another who
is unconsciously in an exposed or
dangerous position and who applies
force to that person to rescue him