Justification

In Torts. Facts making the act charged legally justiflabla legal right to do the act complained of by the plaintiflf. Justification admits the doing of the act charged as a wrong, but alleges a right to do it on the part of the defendant, thus denying that it is a wrong. Excuse merely shows reasons why the defendant should not make good the injury which the plaintiff has suffered from some wrong done. See "Avowry." In Practice. The proceeding by which sureties establish their ability to perform the.undertaking of the bond or recognizance.

In Pleading. The allegation of matter of fact by the defendant, establishing his legal right to do the act complained of. It does not deny that the act was done, but alleges a right to do it on the part of the defendant, thus denying that it is a wrong. Excuse merely shows reasons why the defendant should not make good the injury which the plaintiff has suffered from some wrong done. See Avowry. Justification is said to be the law's permission to injure others because of some countervailing benefit to society outweighing the harm done; 26 Harv. L. Rev. 741. The benefit may assume many forms, as prevention of crime, freedom of speech, free competition, or the free beneficial use of property by the owner, etc.; id. It is said that all justifications will fall into one of two classes: 1. Where the objects sought for are so important that motive must be ignored; 2. Where the objects are not so important but that the presence of ill will may turn the scale; Munster v. Lamb, 11 Q. B. D. 588; McLaughlin v. Cowley, 127 Mass. 316. Trespasses. A warrant, regular on its face, and issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, is a complete justification to the officer to whom it is directed for obeying its command, whether it be really valid or not. But where the warrant is absolutely void, or apparently irregular in an important respect, or where the act done is one which is beyond the power conferred by the warrant, it is no justification. See Arrest; Trespass. So, too, many acts, and even homicide committed in self-defence, or defence of wife, children, or servants, are justifiable; Archb. Cr. P. by Pom. 681, n.

A maintaining or showing a sufficient reason in court why the defendant did what he is called upon to anawer, particularly inan action of libel. A Jefense of justification is a defense showing the libel to be true, or in an action of assault showing the violence to have been necessary. See Steph. Pl. 184.

In practice. The proceeding by which bail establish their ability to perform the undertaking of the bond or recognizance.

Making an act matter of right. 1. Allegation of a reason why defenda might lawfully do the act complained of. In libel, common as a plea on the gi-ound of pri lege, or of truth and public advantage. The eflf< ' Dundee Mortgage Trust Investment Co. v. Cha ton, 38 F. R. 194 (1687). ^ L. justitia; Justus, rightful. ' [Duncan v. Magette, 25 Tex. 263 (1860), Roberts, » Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 628 (1861), Scott, J., quoti Burlamaqui. » [1 Bl. Coih. 141: Magna Charta, c. 29. •SBl. Com. 109. then is that the plamti£E never had any right of action, because the act charged was lawful. ^ See Slander. 2. Proof that bail is sufficient. Made by oath of the person proposed, that he possesses the qualifications required by law. K. K. As an abbreviation, commonly denotes king. Compare Q. K. E. King's bench, q. v. K. C. King's council, or counsel, qq. v.