92 Ala. 15 | Ala. | 1890
The evidence tended to show the following state of facts: The appellant, Ed Lee, rented a large farm during the year 1890, upon which he resided himself, and a portion of which he sub-rented that year to one Monroe Walker. Lee rented the same farm for the year 1891, and continued to occupy it. Walker made arrangements to work on the plantation of one Westcott for the year 1891, but, with Lee’s permission, left his family on the latter’s place, until a house could be pillared for them on the Westcott place. After January 1, 1891, Walker had no right on (he Lee farm, except to occupy with his family the house thereon until a dwelling could be builtfor them on the Westcott place. After the first of the year, Walker worked on the latter place, his wife remaining temporarily on the Lee place, and working there as a laborer, and he going and staying there at night when he wished to do so. The house in which Lee lived, was about a quarter of a mile from the house occupied by Walker’s family, and was on the same place. About nine o’clock at night on the-day of February, 1891, Lee went over to the house occupied by the wife of Walker, and was there talking to her, in the presence of her daughter, about some work he wished her to do the next day, when Walker came in, made some exclamation, and grabbed a chair and tried to strike
The exceptions to portions of the charge given by the trial court and to the refusal to give the charges requested by the defendant, raise but the single question, as to whether or not it was the duty of the defendant to retreat, after getting out of the house and upon his own land. In behalf of the appellant it is urged, that after he got upon land, the right to the exclusive possession of which was in him, he was not bound to retreat farther, though retreat was entirely practicable, but was entitled to stand his ground and protect himself, even to the taking of life, if he was without fault in bringing on the difficulty. We have not been cited to, nor have we found, any authority to support the proposition, that the fact that one happens to be upon any part of his own land, thereby secures to himself all the rights deducible from the principle which is illustrated by the maxim, that every man’s house is his castle. It is familiar doctrine, that in order to entitle a person to the benefits of the plea of self-defense, against the charge of homicide, he must have employed all means in his power, consistent with his safety, to avoid the danger, and avert the necessity of taking life; and he must have retreated, if retreat was practicable.— Carter v. State, 82 Ala. 13. In the old books of the law, the phrases, “retreat to the wall,” or “retreat to the ditch,” were much in vogue, as figurative expressions of the rule, that, in order to avoid the necessity of taking life, combat must be declined so long as the avenues of escape are open. 1 Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, 479-483; 1 Russell on Crimes, 661. As one who has been forced to the wall, or to the ditch, can withdraw no farther, the law says he may there stand at bay, and resist assault, even to the taking of life. Upon like principles, a man’s dwelling was regarded as the limit of retreat for him. In the turbulence of early times men made their habitations holds of defense, and were often compelled to protect .themselves therein. One’s dwelling was regarded as his place of refuge. Its sanctity in this regard was fully recognized by the law. A man in his own house was treated as
Affirmed.