Paine Massacre Notes. See Descriptive List of Sources and Documents. JA's much less complete minutes follow (MHi: MS I):

1 Hawkins, pleas of the Crown 71, c. 28, §14.

See note 29 115 above.

1 Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 74–75, c. 29, §13:

“Homicide se defendendo . . . seems to be where one, who has no other possible Means of preserving his Life from one who combats with him on a sudden Quarrel, or of defending his Person from one who attempts to beat him, (especially if such Attempt be made upon him in his own House,) kills the Person by whom he is reduced to such an inevitable Necessity.”

1 Hawkins, pleas of the Crown 75, c. 29, §16: “[A]n Officer who kills one that resists him in the Execution of his Office, and even a private Person, that kills one who feloniously assaults him in the Highway, may justify the Fact without ever giving back at all.”

Foster, Crown Cases 292, reports Rex v. Stedman (Old Bailey 1704), which holds that a soldier struck by a woman in the face with an iron patten so that the blood ran, was guilty of no more than manslaughter for subsequently killing her. “The Smart of the Man's Wound, and the Effusion of Blood might possibly keep his Indignation boiling to the Moment of the Fact.”

Reg. v. Mawgridge, Kelyng 119, 135, 84 Eng. Rep. 1107, 1114 (Q.B. 1707). For the full quotation, see note 10 96 above.

1 Hale, Pleas of the Crown 485–486, discusses Harcourt's Case, holding that one who from within a house kills another who is attempting to enter, is guilty of manslaughter (and not entitled to plead self-defence) because his life was not endangered by those on the outside.

Rex v. Cook, Cro. Car. 537, 538, 79 Eng. Rep. 1063 (K.B. 1639): Killing a bailiff who, in attempting to serve process, broke a window and door “was not Murder, but Manslaughter only; For although he killed a Bayliff, yet he killed him not in duly executing Process.”