Egyptians, or Gipsies. 5. Common nuisances. 6. Idleness. 7. Luxury and extravagant expenses. 8. Gaming. 9. Destroying game.

5. What are common nuisances ?—167, 168.

Common nuisances are such inconvenient or troublesome offenses as annoy the whole community in general, and therefore are indictable only, and not actionable. Of this nature are: 1. Annoyances to highways, bridges, rivers, &c. 2. Offensive trades, &c. 3. Disorderly houses. 4. Lotteries. 5. The making and selling fireworks, or throwing them about. 6. Eaves-droppers. 7. Common scolds.

6. What if inns refuse to entertain a traveler, without a very suf ficient reason?-167.

They may be indicted, suppressed, and the inn-keepers fined

7. How are eaves-droppers punishable?-168.

By fine, and finding sureties for their good behavior.

8. Into what classes are idle persons and vagrants divided?—169. The statute 17 George II., c. 5, divides them into three classes 1. Idle and disorderly persons. 2. Rogues and vagabonds. 3. Incorrigible rogues.

CHAPTER XIV.

OF HOMICIDE.

1. Of what three kinds are crimes and misdemeanors which, in a inore peculiar manner, affect and injure individuals, or private subjects?-177.

They are principally of three kinds : injuries against their persons, their habitations, and their property.

2. Of crimes injurious to the persons of private subjects, what is the principal and most important ?—177.

The offense of taking away life, or homicide.

3. Of what kinds is homicide?-177, 178.

Justifiable, excusable, and felonious. The first has no share of guilt at all; the second very little; but the third is the highest crime against the law of nature that man is capable of committing.

4. Of what kinds is justifiable homicide?-178.

It is of divers kinds : 1. Homicide owing to some unavoidable necessity; 2. Homicide committed for the advancement of public justice; 3. Homicide committed to prevent crime.

5. When is homicide justifiable, as of necessity?—178, 179.

When it is owing to some unavoidable necessity, without any will, intention, or desire, and without any inadvertence or negligence in the party killing, and therefore without any shadow of blame; as, for instance, by virtue of such an office as obliges one, in the execution of public justice, to put a malefactor to death. This is an act of necessity and even of civil duty.

6. What if judgment of death be given by a judge not authorized by lawful commission, and execution is done accordingly?-178. The judge is guilty of murder.

7. What if an officer beheads one who is adjudged to be hanged, or vice versa ?-179.

It is murder.

8. Of what kinds are justifiable homicides committed for the advancement of public justice?—179, 180.

Of six kinds : 1. When an officer, in the execution of his office, either in a civil or criminal case, kills a person that assaults and resists him.

2. If an officer, or any private person, attempts to take another charged with felony, and is resisted; and, in the endeavor to take him, kills him.

3. In case of a riot or rebellious assembly, the officers endeavoring to disperse the mob are justifiable in killing them, both at common law and by statute.

4. Where a prisoner in a jail, or going to a jail, assaults the jailer or officer, and he in his defense kills him.

5. If trespassers in forests, parks, chases, or warrens, would not surrender themselves to the keeper they might be slain. 6. If the champions in a trial by battel killed either of them the other.

9. In the first five of these cases what necessity must there be on the officer's side?-180.

Absolute necessity.

10. To prevent what crime is homicide justifiable?-180.

Any forcible and atrocious crime; as if any person attempts a robbery or murder of another, or attempts to break open, or burn a house in the night time, and shall be killed in such attempt, the slayer shall be acquitted and discharged.

11. Does this reach to any crime unaccompanied with force?—180. It does not it does not reach to the offense of picking pockets, or to the breaking open of any house in the daytime. unless it carries with it an attempt of robbery also.

12. When was homicide justifiable, by the Jewish law?-181.

The Jewish law, which punished no theft with death, makes homicide justifiable only in case of nocturnal house-breaking: "If a thief be found breaking up, and he be smitten that he die, no blood shall be shed for him; but if the sun be risen upon him, there shall blood be shed for him, for he should have made full restitution." (Exod. xxii. 2.)

13. What was the law at Athens, as to theft by night ?—181 It was lawful to kill the criminal, if taken in the fact.

14. What was the Roman law of the twelve tables in regard to thieves?-181.

That a thief might be slain by night with impunity; or even by day, if he armed himself with any dangerous weapon.

15. Did the Roman and Jewish laws justify homicide when com‐ mitted in defence of chastity?-181.

Yes when committed in defense of the chastity either of

one's self or relations; and so, also, according to Selden, stood the law in the Jewish republic.

16. When does the English law justify homicide in defence of chastity?-181.

It justifies a woman killing one who attempts to ravish her; and so, too, the husband or father may justify in killing a man who attempts a rape upon his wife or daughter; but not if he takes them in adultery by consent, for the one is forcible and felonious, but not the other.

17. What principle runs through all laws, as to preventing crimes by homicide?-181.

The one uniform principle that runs though our own, and all other laws, seems to be this: that where a crime, in itself capital, is endeavored to be committed by force, it is lawful to repel that force by the death of the party attempting.

18. What doctrine does Mr. Locke hold on this subject ?-181.

"That all manner of force, without right, upon a man's person puts him in a state of war with the aggressor; and, of consequence, that, being in such a state of war, he may lawfully kill him that puts him under this unnatural restraint."

19. Will the law of England suffer with impunity any crime to be prevented by death?-182.

It will not; unless the crime, if committed, would also be punished by death.

20. Wherein does excusable differ from justifiable homicide?-182. In justifiable homicide the slayer is in no kind of fault whatsoever, not in the minutest degree; but that is not quite the case in excusable homicide, the very name whereof imports some fault, some error or omission; so trivial, however, that the law excuses it from the guilt of felony, though in strictness it judges it deserving of some little degree of punishment.

21. Of what sorts is excusable homicide?-182.

Excusable homicide is either per infortunium, by misadventure or se defendendo, upon a principle of self-preservation.

22. When does homicide by misadventure happen?-182.

Where a man, doing a lawful act, without any intention of hurt, unfortunately kills another; where a parent is moderately correcting his child, a master his apprentice or scholar, or an officer punishing a criminal, and happens to occasion his death, it is only misadventure, for the act of correction is lawful; but if he exceeds the bounds of moderation, either in the manner, the instrument, or the quantity of punishment, and death ensues, it is manslaughter at least, and in some cases murder; for the act of immoderate correction is unlawful.

23. Where one whips another's horse, whereby it runs over a child and kills him, what offense is it in the rider; what in the person who whipped the horse?-183.

It is held to be accidental in the rider, for he has done nothing unlawful; but manslaughter in the person who whipped the horse, for the act was a trespass, and at best a piece of idleness, of inevitably dangerous consequence.

24. If death ensues in consequence of an idle, dangerous, and un awful sport, what offense is it?-183.

In general, it is held to be manslaughter, and not misadventure.

25. When is homicide in self-defense excusable ?—184.

Defending one's self upon a sudden affray, is excusable, rather than justifiable. Chance-medley is such killing as happens in self-defense upon a sudden rencounter. To excuse homicide by the plea of self-defense, it must appear that the slayer had no other possible (or, at least, probable) means of escaping from his assailant.

26. Does this natural right of self-defense imply a right of attacking?-184.

It does not; for, instead of attacking one another for injuries past or impending, men need only have recourse to the proper tribunals of justice.

27. What is the true criterion between homicide upon chance-medley, in self-defense, and manslaughter in the proper legal sense of the word?--184.

It seems to be this: when both parties are actually combat