discipline or to compel work or labor by the convict, punishment inflicted for such purposes is not an assault.98 But if the officer or a person whom he calls to his assistance exceeds his authority by inflicting such punishment under circumstances which the law does not recognize as sufficient to justify it, he is guilty of an assault.94

At common law, corporal punishment may, under some circumstances be inflicted upon soldiers or seamen by army or naval officers,95 or by the captain of a vessel.96 But in this country, flogging in the army and navy and on merchant vessels is expressly prohibited by act of congress.

Even in cases where chastisement is permitted, the person inflicting the punishment is guilty of an assault and battery if the correction is immoderate.97 And he may be guilty of manslaughter or even of

93 Westbrook v. State, 133 Ga. 578, 66 S. E. 788, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 591, 18 Ann. Cas. 295.

94 State v. Mincher, 172 N. C. 895, 90 S. E. 429.

V.

Whether the officer is justified depends upon the facts of each case, and is to be determined by the test of reasonableness. Westbrook State, 133 Ga. 578, 66 S. E. 788, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 591, 18 Ann. Cas. 295. Where the hirer of a county convict has no authority under the statute to whip him, he is guilty of assault and battery if he does so. Prewitt v. State, 51 Ala. 33.

95 See Wilkes v. Dinsman, 7 How. (U. S.) 89.

96 United States V. Ruggles, 5 Mason 192, Fed. Cas. No. 16,205; United States v. Wickham, 1 Wash. C. C. 316, Fed. Cas. No. 16,689.

97 Alabama. Dean v. State, 89 Ala. 46, 8 So. 38; Boyd v. State, 88 Ala. 169, 7 So. 268, 16 Am. St. Rep. 31. Georgia. Illinois.

395.

Indiana.

Neal v. State, 54 Ga. 281.
Fletcher v. People, 52 Ill.

Hinkle v. State, 127 Ind. 490, 26 N. E. 777; Vanvactor v. State, 113 Ind. 276, 15 N. E. 341, 3 Am. St. Rep. 645; Danenhoffer v. State, 69 Ind. 295, 35 Am. Rep. 216.

North Carolina. State v. Dickerson, 98 N. C. 708, 3 S. E. 687; State v. Jones, 95 N. C. 588, 59 Am. Rep. 282; State v. Pendergrass, 19 N. C. (2 Dev. & B.) 365, 31 Am. Dec. 416.

Pennsylvania. Com. v. Seed, 5 Clark 78.

Texas. Stanfield v. State, 43 Tex. 167; Gorman v. State, 42 Tex. 221; Dill v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. 49, 219 S. W. 481; Harris v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. 468, 203 S. W. 1089; Ely v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. 562, 152 S. W. 631; Stephens v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 67, 68 S. W. 281; Inglen v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. 472, 37 S. W. 861; Dowlen v. State, 14 Tex. App. 61.

Wisconsin. Morrow v. Wood, 35 Wis. 59, 17 Am. Rep. 471.

England. Reg. v. Griffin, 11 Cox C. C. 402; Rex v. Keller, 2 Shower K. B. 289.

murder if death ensues as a result of such immoderate punishment.98

§ 430. Self-defense-In general. Generally speaking, a person who is unlawfully assaulted by another may use such force to repel the assault as is necessary or reasonably appears to be necessary to protect himself, and is not guilty of an assault or an assault and battery in so doing.99 To give him this right it is not necessary that he be in real or apparent danger of losing his life or suffering great bodily harm.1 Nor is it necessary that the danger be real. A reasonably apparent danger is sufficient.

A teacher is not justified in using his fists in administering corporal punishment. Wilson v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. 442, 190 S. W. 155.

98 See §§ 625, 652 et seq., infra. 99 Alabama. Howell v. State, 79 Ala. 283; Simpson v. State, 59 Ala. 1, 31 Am. Rep. 1; Blankenship v. State, 11 Ala. App. 125, 65 So. 860. Delaware. State v. Brooks, 3 Boyce (26 Del.) 203, 84 Atl. 225.

Indiana. Agee v. State, 64 Ind.

340.

Iowa. State v. Brackey, 175 Iowa 599, 157 N. W. 198; State v. Goering, 106 Iowa 636, 77 N. W. 327.

Kansas. State v. Countryman, 57 Kan. 815, 48 Pac. 137.

Massachusetts. Com. v. Bush, 112 Mass. 280.

Minnesota. State v. Damuth, 135 Minn. 76, 160 N. W. 196.

Mississippi. Wicker v. State, 107 Miss. 690, 65 So. 885.

New York. Evers v. People, 3 Hun 716, aff'd 63 N. Y. 625.

North Carolina. State v. Burwell, 63 N. C. 661.

Oklahoma. Dickinson v. State, 3 Okla. Cr. 151, 104 Pac. 923.

Oregon. State v. Selby, 73 Ore. 378, 144 Pac. 657.

Rhode Island. State v. Sherman, 16 R. I. 631, 18 Atl. 1040.

Texas. Lozano v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. 174, 202 S. W. 510; Nobles v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. 46, 200 S. W. 1090.

But there must be at least a

Vermont. State v. Blodgett, 50 Vt.

142.

Virginia. Jackson v. Com., 96 Va. 107, 30 S. E. 452.

See also other cases cited in the following notes, and § 431, infra.

A husband has a right to defend himself against attacks by his wife. Hays v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. 349, 206 S. W. 941; Leonard v. State, 27 Tex. App. 186, 11 S. W. 112.

It is a good defense to a prosecution for the statutory offense of wounding, disfiguring, or inflicting great bodily harm upon another, that the injury was inflicted in self-defense. State v. Janke, 238 Mo. 378, 141 S. W. 1136; State v. Bidstrup, 237 Mo. 273, 140 S. W. 904; State v. Davis, 58 W. Va. 94, 51 S. E. 230.

1 Taylor v. State, 17 Ala. App. 508, 85 So. 877; Blankenship v. State, 11 Ala. App. 125, 65 So. 860; State v. Stansberry, 182 Iowa 908, 166 N. W. 359; Price v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. 80, 79 S. W. 540.

2 Alabama. Christian v. State, 96 Ala. 89, 11 So. 338.

California. People v. Anderson, 44 Cal. 65.

Illinois. Campbell v. People, 16 Ill. 17, 61 Am. Dec. 49.

Indiana. Agee v. State, 64 Ind. 340. Kentucky. Williams v. Com., 170 Ky. 848, 186 S. W. 881.

Michigan. People v. Lennon, 71

reasonable apprehension of immediate danger. And one cannot justify on the ground of self-defense acts done after the necessity for defense has passed. If the danger is imminent, however, a person is not obliged to wait until he is struck, but may prevent a battery by striking first.5

The extent to which one may go in repelling an assault is to be measured by the nature and character of the assault. The force employed must be no more than is necessary or reasonably appears to be necessary to repel the attack, and a person who repels a simple assault by force that is clearly excessive and out of all proportion to the assault, is himself guilty of assault and battery. Generally a person

North Carolina. State v. Nash, 88 N. C. 618.

Texas. Reid v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. 288, 189 S. W. 483; Lassiter v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. 35, 163 S. W. 710; Parish v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 254, 153 S. W. 327; Evans v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 174, 122 S. W. 392; Marsden v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 458, 110 S. W. 897.

See also cases cited in the preceding notes, and see § 706, infra.

3 Illinois. Lawlor v. People, 74 Ill. 228.

Missouri. State v. McNamara, 100 Mo. 100, 13 S. W. 938.

Nebraska. Lambert v. State, 80 Neb. 562, 114 N. W. 775.

North Carolina. State v. Nash, 88 N. C. 618.

Oregon. State v. McCann, 43 Ore. 155, 72 Pac. 137.

Rhode Island. State v. Sharpe, R. I.

105 Atl. 737.

A mere belief that he is in danger is not enough, but there must be a reasonable ground for such belief.

State v. Bryson, 60 N. C. 476.

One cannot avail himself of the doctrine of self-defense if he acts in a spirit of retaliation or revenge. Lambert v. State, 80 Neb. 562, 114 N. W. 775.

See also § 706, infra.

4 Harris v. State, 123 Ala. 69, 26 So. 515; Faubian v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. 234, 203 S. W. 897; State v. Miller, 85 W. Va. 326, 102 S. E. 303.

5 Delaware. State V. Brooks, 3 Boyce (26 Del.) 203, 84 Atl. 225. Minnesota. Gallagher v. State, 3 Minn. 270.

Missouri. State v. McDonald, 67 Mo. 13.

North Carolina. State v. Bryson, 60 N. C. 476.

Tennessee. Smith v. State, 8 Lea (76 Tenn.) 402.

And see § 433, infra.

6 State v. Goering, 106 Iowa 636, 77 N. W. 327; Price v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. 80, 79 S. W. 540.

7 Alabama. Blankenship v. State, 11 Ala. App. 25, 65 So. 860. California.

People v. Douglass, 87

Cal. 281, 25 Pac. 417.

Delaware. State v. Roe, 7 Boyce (30 Del.) 95, 103 Atl. 16; State v. Brooks, 3 Boyce (26 Del.) 203, 84 Atl. 225.

Georgia. Floyd v. State, 36 Ga. 91, 91 Am. Dec. 760.

8

is not justified in using a deadly weapon to repel a simple assault. But he may use such a weapon, and may even take his assailant's life 10 if he is assaulted in such a way as to put him in apparent danger of death or great bodily harm, provided he uses no more force than is apparently necessary to protect himself.

§ 431. Person provoking or bringing on difficulty-In general. As a rule, a person cannot invoke the doctrine of self-defense unless he was himself free from fault in bringing on the difficulty.11 So one who is himself the aggressor, or who intentionally provokes an assault, 12 or who fights by agreement, or according to mutual con222 S. W. 1014; State v. Gamble, 119 Mo. 427, 24 S. W. 1030; State v. McNamara, 100 Mo. 100, 13 S. W. 938. New York. Evers v. People, 3 Hun 716, aff'd 63 N. Y. 625.

Indiana. Spurlin v. State, 189 Ind. 273, 124 N. E. 753; Agee v. State, 64 Ind. 340.

Iowa. State v. Brackey, 175 Iowa 599, 157 N. W. 198.

Massachusetts. Com. v. Bush, 112 Mass. 280; Com. v. Ford, 5 Gray 475. Minnesota. Gallagher v. State, 3 Minn. 270.

North Carolina. State v. Shields, 110 N. C. 497, 14 S. E. 779.

South Carolina. State v. Quin, 3 Brev. 515.

Texas. Leonard v. State, 27 Tex. App. 186, 11 S. W. 112.

8 State v. Countryman, 57 Kan. 815, 48 Pac. 137.

For a man to spit in another's face does not justify the use by the other of a dangerous weapon. Com. v. McKie, 1 Gray (Mass.) 61, 61 Am. Dec.

410.

9 Arizona. Ryan v. Territory, 12 Ariz. 208, 100 Pac. 770.

Delaware. State v. Brooks, 3 Boyce (26 Del.) 203, 84 Atl. 225; State v. Mills, 6 Pennew. 497, 69 Atl. 841.

Indiana. Agee v. State, 64 Ind. 340. Iowa. State v. Shea, 104 Iowa 724, 74 N. W. 687.

Missouri. State v. Wicker, Mo.

North Carolina. State v. Shields, 110 N. C. 497, 14 S. E. 779.

Texas. Ware v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. 505, 217 S. W. 946; Brinkley v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. 150, 198 S. W. 940; Lassiter v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. 35, 163 S. W. 710; Hartfield v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. 515, 134 S. W. 1180.

10 See § 699 et seq., infra.

11 Johnson v. State, 136 Ala. 76, 34 So. 209; Winder v. State, 16 Ala. App. 422, 78 So. 416; McWilliams v. State, 12 Ala. App. 92, 67 So. 735; Blankenship v. State, 11 Ala. App. 125, 65 So. 860; Spurlin v. State, 189 Ind. 273, 124 N. E. 753.

12 Alabama. Jacobs v. State, 146 Ala. 103, 42 So. 70; Johnson v. State, 136 Ala. 76, 34 So. 209; Howell v. State, 79 Ala. 283; Brown v. State, 74 Ala. 42.

Kentucky. Williams v. Com., 170 Ky. 848, 186 S. W. 881; Utterback v. Com., 105 Ky. 723, 49 S. W. 479, 88 Am. St. Rep. 328; Ward v. Com., 31 Ky. L. Rep. 807, 103 S. W. 719; Crowe v. Com., 29 Ky. L. Rep. 12, 91 S. W. 663.

Michigan. People v. Miller, 49 Mich. 23, 12 N. W. 895.

Missouri. State v. Gamble, 119 Mo.

sent, 13 or who willingly enters a fight,14 cannot escape responsibility for blows given him in the course of the difficulty on the ground that they were in self-defense, unless, before they are given, he has in good faith withdrawn from the conflict in so far as possible and in such a way as to show his adversary that such was his intention.15 But a person is not deprived of his right of self-defense because he fights willingly in his own necessary self-defense.16 And a person who provokes a difficulty with another with intent to injure him, but with no intent to kill him or do him serious bodily harm, cannot be convicted