Lee v. State

• Decision Date: 11 June 1891
• Citation: 92 Ala. 15,9 So. 407
• Parties: LEE v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

9 So. 407

92 Ala. 15

LEE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 11, 1891

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; THOMAS M. ARRINGTON, Judge.

Watts & Son, for appellant.

W L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

WALKER J.

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 subrented for 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 prepared for them on the Westcott place. After January 1, 1891, Walker had no rights on the Lee farm except to occupy with his family the house thereon until a dwelling could be built for 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 there 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 9 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 Lee. Walker's wife interfered. Lee went out of the house, walked off about 15 steps, and stopped in a path leading from that house in the direction of the house in which he lived. After Lee got out of the house, Walker's wife locked the door. Walker went to the fire-place, picked up an iron bar used for a poker, then went to the door, pushed his wife out of the way, unfastened the door, and ran out after Lee, and, approaching towards him with the iron bar, was fatally shot by Lee with a pistol. The night was dark, and it was raining at the time. There was no fence around the house in which Walker's wife was staying.

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 further, 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, 2 South....