defence

defense at trial, not defense in relation to other objectives that may be important to the accused.

Torts. A forcible resistance of an attack by force. A man is Justified in defending his person. thai of bis wife, children, and servants, and for this purpose he may use as much as may be necessary, even to killing the assailant, remembering that the means used must always be proportioned to the oca and that an excess becomes itself an Injury; 3 M. & W. 150; Jamison v. Moseley, 89 478, 10 South. 582; People v. Bruggy, 93 Cal. 476, 29 Pac. 26; Lovetf v. State, 30 I hi. 142. 11 South, 550, 17 L. K. A. 7".-,: Kelly v. State, 27 Tex. App. 502, 11 S. W. «;27: Duncan v. State, 4!> Ark. 543, 8 S. W. 164; Kstep v. Com., 80 Ky. 39, 4 S. W. 820, 9 Am. St Rep. 200; but it must be in defence, and not in revenge; 1 C. & M. 214; PolL Torts 255; State v. Mc Graw, 36 S. C. 2s::. 11 s. E. 630; for one is not justified in shooting another, if such other party is retreating or has thrown away his weapon; Meurer v. State, 129 Ind. 5S7, 29 N. E. 392; nor is a mere threat to take one's life, with nothing more, a sufficient defence or excuse for committing homicide; State v. Howard, 35 S. C. 197, 11 S. E. 481. A man may also repel force by force in defence of his personal property, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a known felony, as rubbery, by any force short of taking the aggressor's life; l Bish. Now Cr. L. g 875; or short of wounding or the employment of a dangerous weapon; Com. v. Donahue, 148 Mass. 529, 20 N. B. 171. 2 L. R. A. 023, 12 Am. St. Rep. 591. In the latter case Holmes, J., said: "We need not consider whether this explanation is quite adequate. There are weighty decisions which go further than those above cited, and which can hardly stand on the riu'ht of self-defence, but involve other considerations of polity." See Powers v. People. 12 in. App. 127. With respect to the defence or protection of the possession of real property, although it is Justifiable even to kill a person in the act of attemptit imlt a forcible felony, as burglary or arson, yet this justification can only take place when the party in ion is wholly without fault; 1 Dale, PI. cr. no. in: 1 Bast, PL Cr. 259, 277. And where an Illegal forcible attack is made upon a dwelling-house with the intention merely of committing a trespass, and not force; 7 Bing. 305; 20 Eng. C. L. 139. See, generally, 1 Chit. Pr. 589; Grotius, lib. 2, c. 1; Rutherford, Inst. b. 1, c. 16; 2 Whart. Cr. L. § 1019; Bishop; Clark; Wharton, Criminal Law; Thompson, Cases of Self- Defence; Assault; Self-Defence; Justification. In Pleading and Practice. The denial of the truth or validity of the complaint. A general assertion that the plaintiff has no ground of action, which is afterwards extended and maintained in the plea. 3 Bla. Com. 296; Co. Litt. 127; Wilson v. Poole, 33 Ind. 448. In this sense it is similar to the contestatio litis of the civilians, and does not include justification. In a more general sense it denotes the means by which the defendant prevents the success of the plaintiff's action, or, in criminal practice, the indictment. The word is commonly used in this sense in modern practice. Half defence was that which was made by the form "defends the force and injury', and says" (defendit vim et injuriam, et dicit). Full defence was that which was made by the form "defends the force and injury when and where it shall behoove him, and the damages, and whatever else he ought to defend" (defendit vim et injuriam quando et ubi curia consider atit, et damna et quicquid quod ipse defendere debet, et dicit), commonly shortened into "defends the force and injury when," etc. 3 B. & P. 9, n.; Co. Litt. 127 b; Willes 41. It follows immediately upon the statement of appearance, "comes" (venit), thus: "comes and defends." By a general defence the propriety of the writ, the competency of the plaintiff, and the jurisdiction of the court were allowed; by defending the force and injury, misnomer was waived; by defending the damages, all exceptions to the person of the plaintiff; and by defending either when, etc., the jurisdiction of the court was admitted. 3 Bla. Com. 298. The distinction between the forms of half and full defence was first lost sight of; 8 Term 633; Willes 41; 3 B. & P. 9; 2 Saund. 209 c; and no necessity for a technical defence exists, under the modern forms of practice.

A resistance of an attack; the to the plaintiff's action, by demurrer equity; all the proceedings on the part delay or defeat the suit v. Full defence;

See Defense.

[L. Lat defensio; L. Fr. defence, defense, from defendre, to deny.] In pleading. A denial, by the defendant in an action at law, of the truth or validity of the plaintiff's complaint. 3 BL Com, 296. A formula by which pleas were anciently in almost all actions required to be prefaced. It was of two kinds, full defence and half defence. The latter is still retained, and is in these words: " And the said defendant, by — his attorney, comes and defends the wrong (or force) and injury when, &c." Stepk, PL (Am. ed. 1824,) ch. ii. sect. vii. rule v. 3 Beeves* Hist. Eng, Law, 428. Termes de la ley. See Defend, Full Defence, Half Defence. The late pleading rules of the English courts have dispensed with this ancient formula, although they have not expressly prohibited its use.

torts, is a forcible resistance of an attack by force. A man is justified in defending his and servants, and for this purpose he may use as much force as may be necessary, even to killing the assailant, remembering that the means used must always be proportioned to the occasion, and an excess becomes, itself, an injury. A man may also repel force by force in defence of his personal property, and even justify homicide against one who manifestly intends or endeavours by violence or surprise to commit a known felony, as robbery. With respect to the defence or protection of the possession of real property, although it 1s justifiable even to kill a person in the act of attempting to commit a forcible felony, as burglary or arson, yet this justification can only take place when the party in possession is wholly without fault. 1 Hale, 440, 444; 1 East, P. C.. 259, 277. When a forcible attack is made upon the dwelling-house of another, without any felonious intent but barely to commit a trespass, it is in general lawful to oppose force by force, when the former was clearly illegal. 7 Bing. 305; S. C. 20 Eng. C. L. Rep. 139. Vide, generally, Ham. N. P. 136, 151; 1 Chit. Pr. 589- 616; Grot. lib. 2, c. 1; Rutherf. Inst. B. 1, c. 16..