Norwich bulletin., 1914-04-10
REASONS FOR APPEAL
 IN PERKINS CASE.
States Attorney Hull Claims the Court
 Erred in Three Points.

In the rather unusual instance of the state taking an appeal in criminal case after a jury has acquitted the accused, States Attorney Hadlai A. Hull has perfected his appeal in sthe case of the state vs. Mrs. Lillian M. Perkins of Allyn's Point. and the same has been prepared in the usual printed form for presenting before the supreme court of errors.
 Mrs. Perkins. who shot and killed her son-in-law, Thomas V. Coatchaly, at her home on June 3, 1913, was tried here in the superior court on tho charge of manslaughter and acquitted Judge Gardiner Greene accepted the verdict. Soon afterwards the states attorney gave notice that he would take an appeal to the supreme court of errors. He expresses his appeal on three grounds in the following words:
 l. The court errer in charging the jury as follows: The second division of the question of defense which l wish to make is the defense of the home.
 The law makes a distinction between assaults made upon mans house and assaults made upon a man in other places. In early times people were obliged to fortify their houses and make themselves, as it were, castles for the defense of the inmates. The law has conformed to this condition of 
 keeps the door of his house closed no others may break and enter it, except in some cases to arrest-cases which have nothing to do with the present action. From this principle Is derived another, that the owner of the house may use all necessary force to keep aggressors out, even to the taking of their lives. A man is not obliged to retreat If assaulted in his dwelling, but may use such means as are abso- l11f falr ayNr 4Nr mt ant forcible entry. even to the taking of life. If a man is making an unlaw- full entry by force into the house of another, the owner may. for the sole purpose of preventing the execution of such unlawful act, make resistance sufficient in degree and in time to pre- vent it. He Is under no obligation to admit the unlawful intruder, or to flee from the house and permit him to effect an unlawful entrance.
 If the resistance is neither greater 1 in degree nor earlier in time than Is
 necessary. and 1t results in the death
 of the assailant. 1t is justifiable homi- | cide and the slayer is to be judged as l the circumstances really appeared to ! him at the moment.
 2. The court erred in charging the 1 jury as follows:
 ! Second was the deceased, as the de- 1 fense claims, violently and unlaWfully ! breaking into the house of the accused ! against her WILL. and was her TeSiSJ- ance, as the defense also claims, no i greater or earlier than necessary to 1 prevent such breaking in?
 l Third if the defense made by the accused was no greater Or earlier than ! necessary to prevent such breaking in was it made in good faith, for the sole purpose of preventing such breaking 1 in; or did the accused merely take ad- vantage of the opportunity afforded by 1 the breating in to gratify il-will
 against the deceased by killing him?
 3. The court erred in charging the i jury as follows:
 It is said that the deceased was tine father of little child in the house ! and that he went to the house for the 1 purpose of seeing and kissing his child
 I understand there is no question that he was the father of the child in the house. Under the law of Connecticut the father and mother are joint guardi-
 ans of their minor children, and have | equal authority over them. In this ] case the child was in the possession ot I one Of the guardfans-that Is, the mother, who had entrusted it's care tC the accused, with instructions not tC ! allow the deceased into the house tt have access to the child. Assuming that the deceased had right to set ! the child and had an4 equal right tC it's custody with the mother. he had nc l right to enforce his prerogative witt regard to the child by violent intru.