SEIZURE¹, practice. The act of taking possession of the property of a person condemned² by the judgment³ of a competent tribunal, to pay a certain sum of money, by a sheriff, constable⁴, or other officer, lawfully⁶ authorized⁷ thereto, by virtue⁸ of an execution, for the purpose of having such property sold according to law to satisfy the judgment. By seizure is also meant the taking possession of goods for a violation⁹ of a public law; as the taking possession of a ship for attempting an illicit¹⁰ trade. 2 Cranch, 18 7; 6 Cowen, 404; 4 Wheat. 100; 1 Gallis. 75; 2 Wash. C. C. 127, 567.

2. The seizure is complete as soon as the goods are within the power of the officer. 3 Rawle's Rep. 401; 16 Johns. Rep. 287; 2 Nott & McCord, 392; 2 Rawle's Rep. 142; Wats. on Sher. 172; Com. Dig. Execution, C 5.

3. The taking of part of the goods in a house, however, by virtue of a fieri facias in the name of the whole, is a good seizure of all. 8 East, R. 474. As the seizure must be made by virtue of an execution, it is evident that it cannot be made after the return day. 2 Caine's Rep. 243; 4 John. R. 450. Vide Door; House; Search Warrant.

SELECTI JUDICES. Judges among the Romans who were selected very much like our juries. They were returned by the praetor, drawn¹¹ by lot, subject to be challenged and sworn. 3 Bl. Com. 366.

SELF-DEFENCE, crim. law. The right to protect one's person and property from injury.

2. It will be proper to consider, 1. The extent of the right of self-defence. 2. By whom it may be exercised. 3. Against whom. 4. For what causes.

3. - 1. As to the extent of the right, it may be laid down, first, that when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all, prudent¹² and precautionary measures to prevent the attack; for example, if by closing a door which was usually left open, one could prevent an attack, it would be prudent, and perhaps the law might require, that it should be closed, in order to preserve the peace, and the aggressor might in such case be held to bail¹³ for his good behaviour; secondly¹⁴, if, after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed¹⁵, he may undoubtedly¹⁶ repel¹⁷ force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext¹⁸ that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; as, if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny¹⁹, while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present, who may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable²⁰ to do him any injury, much less to kill him; he ought to be secured and delivered to the public authorities. But when an attack is made by a thief under such circumstances, and it is impossible to ascertain²¹ to what extent he may push it, the law does not requite²² the party assailed to weigh with great nicety the probable extent of the attack, and he may use the most violent means against his assailant, even to the taking of his life. For homicide may be excused, se defendendo, where a man has no other probable means of preserving his life from one who attacks him, while in the commission of a felony, or even on a sudden quarrel, he beats him, so that he is reduced to this inevitable²³ necessity. Hawk²⁴. bk. 2, c. 11, s. 13. And the reason is that when so reduced, he cannot call to his aid the power of society or of the commonwealth²⁵, and, being unprotected by law, he reassumes his natural rights, which the law sanctions, of killing²⁶ his adversary²⁷ to protect himself. Toull. Dr. Civ. Fr. ]iv. 1, tit. 1, n. 210. See Pamph. Rep. of Selfridge's Trial in 1806 2 Swift's Ev. 283.

4. - 2. The party attacked may undoubtedly defend himself, and the law further sanctions the mutual²⁸ and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the near relations of hushand and wife, patent and child, and master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in their person or property, it is lawful⁵ for him to repel force by force, for the law in these cases respects the passions of the human mind, and makes, it lawful in him, when external violence is offered to himself, or to those to whom he bears so near a connexion, to do that immediate²⁹ justice to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives³⁰ are strong enough to restrain. 2 Roll. Ab. 546; 1 Chit. Pr. 592.

5. - 3. The party making the attack may be resisted, and if several persons join in such attack they may all be resisted, and one may be killed although he may not himself have given the immediate cause for such killing, if by his presence and his acts, he has aided the assailant. See Conspiracy³¹.

6. - 4. The cases for which a man may defend himself are of two kinds; first, when a felony is attempted, and, secondly, when, no felony is attempted or apprehended³².

7. - 1st. A man may defend himself, and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. 1 East, P. C. 271; 4 Bl. Com. 180. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape³³, robbery, arson³⁴, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist, and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.

8. - 2d. A man may defend himself when no felony has been threatened or attempted; 1. When the assailant attempts to beat another and there is no mutual combat; as, where one meets another and attempts to commit or does commit an assault and battery on him, the person attacked may defend himself; and an offer or, attempt to strike another, when sufficiently³⁵ near, so that that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first, and is not required to wait until he has been struk. Bull. N. P. 18; 2 Roll. Ab. 547. 2. When there is a mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel. In these cases both parties are the aggressors; and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at least, unless the survivor³⁶ can prove two things: 1st. That before the mortal stroke was given be had refused any further combat, and had retreated as far as he could with safety; and 2d. That he killed his adversary from necessity, to avoid his own destruction.

9. A man may defend himself against animals, and he may during the attack kill them, but not afterwards. 1 Car. & P. 106; 13 John. 312; 10 John. 365.

10. As a general rule no man is allowed to defend himself with force if he can apply to the law for redress³⁷, and the law gives him a complete remedy, See Assault; Battery; Necessity; Trespass³⁸.