retaliation

In International law. A term including both reprisal and retorsion (q. V.) RETALLIA (Law Lat.; from Law Pr. retainer, to cut again). In old En^ish law. Retail; the cutting up again, or division of a commodity into smaller parts. Nee in grosso, nee ad retal Ham, neither in gross (by wholesale), nor at retail. Reg. Orig. 184. RETARE (Law Lat.)

In old English law. To suspect; to accuse. Retatus de murdro, accused of murder. Assis. de Clarendon, temp. Hen. II. § 1; Spelman. De furto retatus, charged with theft. Cowell.

See Lex Talionis. manton, 2 N. II. 520; and for release of bail; Hughes v. Hollingsworth, 5 N. C. 146; RETENEMENTUM. Detaining, withholdmay waive the right of appeal, review, no- ing, or keeping back. Cowell. tice, and the like, and confess judgment; RETIRE. As applied to bills of exchange, Pike v. Emerson, 5 N. II. 393, 22 Am. Dec. this word is ambiguous. It is commonly used 468; may agree to the entry of a judgment; of an indorser who takes up a bill by hand- Devenbaugh v. Nifer, 3 Ind. App. 379, 29 ing the amount to a transferee, after which N. E. 923; In re Maxwell, 66 Hun 151, 21 the indorser holds the instrument with alt N. Y. Supp. 209; may waive a jury trial; his remedies intact. But it is sometimes Stevenson v. Felton, 99 N. C. 58, 5 S. E. 399. used of an acceptor, by whom, when a bill But he has no authority to execute a dis- is taken up or retired at maturity, it is in charge of a debtor except upon the actual effect paid, and all the remedies on it expayment of the full amount of the debt; 8 tinguished; Byles, Bills, 93, 195, 263, 296; Dowl. 656; Derwort v. Loonier, 21 Conn. Dan. Neg. Inst. 12. 245; Walker v. Scott, 13 Ark. 644; Watt v. Brookover, 35 W. Va. 323, 13 S. E. 1007, RETIRING BOARD. In case an army officer has become physically incapacitated, the 29 Am. St. Rep. 811; nor to satisfy a judgment for a less sum than is due; Peters v. secretary of war, under the direction of the Lawson, 66 Tex. 336, 17 S. W. 734; and that president, may assemble a retiring board of in money only; Nolan v. Jackson, 16 111. not more than nine nor less than five officers; 272; Everett v. Slierfey, 1 la. 360; nor to two-tifths shall be selected from the Medical release sureties; Givens v. Briscoe, 3 J. J. Corps. The members, except those of the Marsh. (Ky.) 532; Varnum v. Bellamy, 4 Medical Corps, shall be seniors in rank to Mc Lean 84, Fed. Cas. No. 16,886; nor to the person whose disability is enquired of. enter a retraxit; Lambert v. Sandford, 2 R. S. § 1246. Blackf. (Ind.) 137, 18 Am. Dec. 149; nor to RET0RNA BREVIUM. In Old English act for the legal representatives of his de- Law. The return of writs by sheriffs and ceased client; Wood v. Ilopkins, 3 N. J. L. bailiffs, which is only a certificate delivered 689; and ordinarily one retained to collect a to the court on thfe day of return, of that debt has 'no right to compromise it; Martin which he hath done touching the execution v. Cap. Ins. Co., 85 la. 643, 52 N. W. 534; of their writ directed to him: this must be Willard v. Gas Fixture Co., 47 Mo. App. 1; indorsed on back of writ by officer; 2 Lilly, Brockley v. Brockley, 122 Pa. 1, 15 Atl. 646. Abr. 476. Each term has return days, fixed, turnable. The first return day is regularly the first day in the term; but there are three days’ grace. 3 Bla. Com. 278.

Compare Retorsion. The lex talionis, or law of retaliation, can never be in all cases an adequate or permanent rule of punishment. The difference of persons, place, time, provocation, or other circumstances may enhance or mitigate the offense; and in such cases retaliation can never be a proper measure of justice.

Vide Lex taltonts.: