THE RIGHT TO SHOOT A BURGLAR.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXVII, Issue 103, 3 May 1893, Page 3

THE RIGHT TO SHOOT A BURGLAR.

Tbe Field discusses a question which haß produced conflict of opinion among some of the highest judicial authorities of the day — nßmely, whether it is lawful for a householder to kill a man who is breaking into his house ? *• Country burglaries aie too painfully in fashion at the present time," Bays the Field, "as we know from the various robberies of ladies' jewels that have been skilfully planned and executed— e. g., the Netberby burglary, that of T.ipluw Court, and others. Moreover, experience has taught us that that the class of ctiminals who plot and execute these raids are, as a rule, moßt unscrupulous as to violence if they consider their own liberty to be in jeopardy, and the revolver is a common adjuDCt and part of tbe ordinary stock-in-trade of the high-clofs professional burglar. " The most eminent writer upon ciiininal jurisprudence during the present century has been Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, late Judge of the Queen's Bench. In his digest of our criminal law he lays down (article 179) the follov ing principle (.citing Coke, Hall, Foster, and other authorities for his assertions) : — ' The intentional infliction of death or bodily harm is not a crime when it is done by any person in order to prevent the commission of treason, mnrder, burglary, rape, robbery, arson, piracy, or any other felony in which the traitor, felon, or pirate so acts as to give the peison who wounds or kills him reasonable ground to believe that he intends to accomp.ish his purpose by 'open force.' (.The italics are our own.) The learned commentator continues -after alluding to the contingencies of arrest of escaping traitorp, &o. (which do not here affect our question of tt.e right to shoot buiglars detected io the act) — ' provided, in each of the eaid csslS, that the object for which d'ath or harm is inflicted cannot be otherwise accomplished.' It would seem from the foregoing extract that, where a felon is actually engaged in committing a ' burglary,' the first condition — that of ' reasonable grouud ' for believing that violence is contemplated— is, by the very nature of the crime perpetrated properly sitisiied. And this being so, unless the : pcrson assailed can be shown to be aware of other adequate resources of defence — e.g., police foice intervening between himself and the assailant —he has . humanly speaking, no other source of protecting himself and his property. We do not consider that he is bound to hail the intruder and to give him noti:e to retire; such a proceeding might be highly dargerous to himself, by disclosing his own whereabouts, coupled with the fact of his detection of the crime. It may bo matter of taste for people of tender conscience to give, even to a burglar, the chance cf ttayiug bis hand by a timely warning; but, iu our opinion, the law does tot demand that the assailed inmate should expose himself to any such contingency of danger. " It will be seen tbat we distinctly favour the view that, when intent to commit burglary is actually patent, more than ever so if 'entry' has been effected, an inmate may then and there 'draw a bead' on the unknown intruder without further warning, Suppose a burglarious operator is engaged in the normal operatiou of plastering a leather on a window and then cutting the glaBS with a diamond for an intended entry (the adhering leather .preventing the noise of falling glass when the acs is complete), in such a case we think that the inmate may legally as well as morally take his shot forthwith (especially since an attempted entry of this nature evinces a ' professional ' operator in crime). Nevertheless, we admit that we, and probab'y most of our readers, would, unless a gang of a ' moonlight ' class were suspected to be in attendance, prefer to give a hail of warning that the felonious attempt had been detected. Still, that is a mere matter of fancy, and we do not blame anyone who declines to run even the risk of this much revelation of bis presence in contiguity to an invader of felonious miod and intent before taking oveit action to protect himself and his household." The Field, however, warns the householder that he has no right to lire on a buigl r who, baving completed his job, is seen mi kii g off with his booty.

There were over 2200 entries at the Bird Show at the Crystal Pal: ce, the display being t^e largest ever org snised at Sydenham. The curiosities of the sbow included a white jackdaw, two white blccklirdf, nightingales, a swallow, a variegated skylark, and a missel thiusb, which in captivity has hatched and reared both thrushes and bl'Ckbirdp. One parrot colled "Emily, come here; \ want you." £500 was asked for a pair of Norwegian owls. A photographer in Pennsylvania obtained a negative, of the bottom of an oil-well in •which had been exploded a glyceriue torpedo. The in.-.tnunei!t was lowered 1700 feet, and illuminated wilh an electric lki>hlight, the result being a di.-tin.et picture of a curious cavity in the earth 1-1 ieet long and 7 feet deep.