Should Burglars be Shot

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6897, 8 February 1894, Page 4

Should Burglars be Shot

A MANCHESTER CASE. ' The Saturday Review discusses the theory as to the right or otherwise of householders to shoot persons whom they find occupying their premises after a felonious breaking and entry, especially at night. Commenting on a decision given at Manchester, it says : — "The facts ef the case were these: — Luke Higgins was accused of feloniously •wounding Owen Riley, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Owen Riley was a youthful burglar. He broke into Mr Higgins' publichouse, and wandered about, stealing money from the till and gazing with covetous eyes upon the cafe. The upshot was that Mr Higgins was aroused from sleep and went downstairs, revolver m hand. What was the exact state of things when he entered the kitchen where Riley was is a question upon which there may be said to be a certain conflict of evidence, inasmach as the statement of Mr Higgins to the police and the evidence of Riley at the trial do not agree. According to Riley, Mr Higgins entered the apartment unannounced, got a good view of his solitary victim by the light of the gas, and aimed at him m the style recommended by Mr Justice Willes. According to Mr Higgins he asked at the door who was there, and upon receiving no answer, came m and saw m a very, dim light the form of a stranger * where no stranger should be,' and therefore, while m a state of much perturbation, and m complete ignorance of the numbers of the hostile force, fired at the figure he saw. Upon this discrepancy it may be observed, first, that thieves are always liars as well, and secondly, that it is not unusual on going to bed and leaving gas burning m any part of the house to turn it much too low* for convenience m revolver practice. In the light or m the dark Mr Higgins made a very good shot, hitting Riley from across the room m the chest, whereby Riley nearly lost his life. Mr Justice Grantham held, upon the application of counsel for the defence, that the i facts thus disclosed could not suffice for the conviction of Mr Higgins. He was of opinion that Mr Higgins did no more than he was lawfully right m reasonable defence of bis life and property, and that there was consequently no evidence against him of a felonious or unlawful shooting. He therefore directed an acquittal, and Mr Higgins retired into private life with his character unspotted from the Conrt."

"Mr Justice Grantham must clearly bo enrolled among the followers of the late Mr Justice Willes ; and who could be m a better following? The story told of that great man and very learned judge is related by an eye-witness to the following effect. Mr Justice Willes was asked : *If I look into my drawingroom and see a burglar Ttacking up the clock, and he cannot see me, wn»« ..-.fjht Itodo V He replied, as nearly as may be . « \f y a d v i ce to you, which I give as a man, as a w^yer, and as an English judge, is as follows :-ln the supposed circumstance this is what you have a, right to do, and I am by no means sure that it is not your duty to do it. Take a double-barrelled gun, carefully load both barrels, and then, without attracting the burglar's attention, aim steadily at his heart and shoot him dead.' Mr Justice Grantham had no occasion to commit himself so far, or so picturesquely as this, because m the case before him the burglar did not die ; but it is clear that if he had died it would have made no difference to the lawfulness of the householder's shooting. It may be aaid that, m a general way, the existence of the circumstances which justify the killing of a felon by a person who is not a constable must be a question of fact for the jury. Nobody suggests that if a burglar were safely m custody, with his hands bound and his weapons and the implements of his vocation removed, it would be a lawful act to put a gun to his head and blow his brains out. Such an act would undoubtedly be murder. Killing burglars m a struggle might conceivably be manslaughter, and sometimes it may, without any question, be excusulile homicide-. According to Sir James Htcphcn, a burglar, or other felon, may bo killed either if he is m the act of committing or about to commit, his crime by open force, and cannot otherwise be prevented from doing it, or if it is impossible otherwise to arrest him or keep him m custody. Also, any person assaulted m his own house may kill his assailant, if the force he employs is ' proportionate to the violence of the assault. 5 The event is' valuable, as it shows at least that, m the opinion of one Judge of the High Court, it is not necessarily criminal to take the offensive against, and nearly kill, a burglar, ' doing his office.'"