The ancient doctrine requiring one to retreat and in good faith decline the combat, if he can, before he will be permitted to invoke the law of self-defense in justification for killing his assailant has been very much modified in this country. The tendency seems to be toward the more reasonable and sensible doctrine that a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is not bound to retreat when violently assaulted but may stand his ground in defending himself.73

In the case of justifiable self-defense the injured party may repel force with force in defense of his person, habitation or property against one who manifestly intendeth and endeavoreth, with violence or surprise, to commit a known felony upon either. In these cases he is not obliged to retreat, but may pursue his adversary till he findeth himself out of danger, and if, in a conflict between them, he happeneth to kill, such killing is justifiable.74

An assault on one's house is regarded as an assault on the person when made apparently to injure the person of the occupant or members of his family. In this view the inmate need not flee from his house in order to escape injury.75

A man's house is his castle and he may defend it even to the taking of life if necessary, or apparently necessary, to prevent forcible entrance against his will.76

On the same principle that one is justified in defending himself, he may defend another, as a man defending a member of his family from a deadly assault.77

Erwin vs. State, 29 Ohio St., 186; Babe Beard vs. U. S., 158 U. S., 550; Hammond vs People, 199 111., 173; Hughes Instructions to Juries, Sec. 260.

74 Foster's C. C. Ch. 3, p. 273;

People vs. Lewis, 117 Cal., 186. 75 State vs. Patterson, 45 Vt. 308. 76 Davison vs. People, 90 111., 229;

Brown vs. People, 39 111., 408.