Odger's English Common Law

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE. 299
1 provisions of the Eiot Act, 171 5, any person engaged in law-
fully"dispersing the mob is indemnified against all proceedings,
civil or criminal, by the express words of section 3 of that Act.
If in the course of dispersing a riot an innocent by-stander should be
accidentally killed, two questions arise :
1. Whether under the circumstances it was necessary in order to disperse
—
the riot to have recourse to deadly weapons.
2. Whether there was any negligence in the use of deadly weapons
which caused the death of the person who was not rioting.
Thus, where a man named Lewis, who was assisting in the suppression
of a riot, shot at a rioter and accidentally killed a boy who was merely
looking on, Tindal, C. J., remarked : " If the firing of the pistol by Lewis
was a rash act, uncalled for by the occasion, or if it was discharged
negligently and carelessly, the offence would amount to manslaughter,
but if it was discharged in the fair and honest execution of his duty, in
endeavouring to disperse the mob, by reason of their resisting, the act of
firing the pistol was then an act justified by the occasion, under the Riot
Act before referred to, and the killing of the boy would then amount to
accidental death only, and not to the offence of manslaughter." 2
(4) Where a person kills another in order to prevent his
committing some forcible and atrocious felony, such as
murder, rape, robbery, burglary or arson, the homicide
is justifiable if there was no other obvious means of preventing
the crime. 3
If there were any such means, resort should first
be had to them. If the crime be a felony against the person,
the party attacked may repel force by force, and will be
excused from the consequences. Thus a woman in defence of
her chastity may lawfully kill a man who is attempting to
ravish her. So, too, the owner of a dwelling-house, or any
member of his family, or even a lodger, may, in order to pre-
vent arson or burglary, lawfully kill the assailant. And not
only the party whose person or property is attacked or his
servants, but also in most cases any stranger who is present
at the time, will be equally justified in killing the aggressor.*
Where a son, believing that his father was cutting the throat of his
mother, shot and killed him, it was held that, if he had reasonable grounds
1 1 Geo. I. st. 2, c. 5.
J In his charge to the grand jury at Bristol, January, 1832, quoted in 5 C. & P.
at p. 267, n.
3 R. v. Symondson (1S9G), GO J. P. 615.
« 1 Hale, 481, 4S4 ; Kost. 274.