1 62 



13 H. 8. 16. 



per Shelly. 



12 H. 8. 10. 



per Brooke. 



22 Ass. pi. 



56. 



6 E. 4. 7. 



per Sares. 



4H. 7.2. 



Stamford, 

 21. 

 qu. 15. 



21 H. 7. 13. 

 Stamf. 16. 



MAXIMS OF THE LAW. 



the offence as it doth in felony, because it is against the 

 commonwealth. 



So if a fire be taken in a street, I may justify the pulling 

 down of the wall or house of another man to save the row 

 from the spreading of the fire ; but if I be assailed in my 

 house, in a city or town, and distressed, and to save my life 

 I set fire on mine own house, which spreadeth and taketh 

 hold upon other houses adjoining, this is not justifiable, 

 but I am subject to their action upon the case, because I 

 cannot rescue mine own life by doing any thing which is 

 against the commonwealth : but if it had been but a private 

 trespass, as the going over another s ground, or the break 

 ing of his inclosure when I am pursued, for the safeguard 

 of my life, it is justifiable. 



This rule admitteth an exception when the law intendeth 

 some fault or wrong in the party that hath brought himself 

 into the necessity ; so that it is necessitas culpabilis. This 

 I take to be the chief reason why seipsum defendendo is 

 not matter of justification, because the law intends it hath 

 a commencement upon an unlawful cause, because quarrels 

 are not presumed to grow without some wrongs either in 

 words or deeds on either part, and the law that thinketh 

 it a thing hardly triable in whose default the quarrel began, 

 supposeth the party that kills another in his own defence 

 not to be without malice ; and therefore as it doth not 

 touch him in the highest degree, so it putteth him to sue 

 out his pardon of course, and punisheth him by forfeiture 

 of goods : for where there cannot be any malice nor wrong 

 presumed, as where a man assails me to rob me, and I kill 

 him that assaileth me ; or if a woman kill him that assaileth 

 her to ravish her, it is justifiable without any pardon. 



So the common case proveth this exception, that is, if a 

 madman commit a felony, he shall not lose his life for it, 

 because his infirmity came by the act of God : but if a 

 drunken man commit a felony, he shall not be excused, 

 because his imperfection came by his own default; for the 

 reason and loss of deprivation of will and election by neces 

 sity and by infirmity is all one, for the lack of arbitrium 

 solutum is the matter : and therefore as infirmitas culpabilis 

 excuseth not, no more doth necessitas culpabilis. 



REGULA VI. 



Corporalis injuria non recipit astimatiomm defuturo. 

 THE law, in many cases that concern lands or goods, doth 

 deprive a man of his present remedy, and turneth him over 

 to a further circuit of remedy, rather than to suffer an 



