ignorance. It was found by the verdict that the boy was incapable of
resistance, and authorities were then quoted to prove that, in order to
save your own life, you have the right to take the life of an unjust
aggressor in self-defence--a principle the truth of which is universally
admitted.

"But the evidence clearly showed that the defenceless boy was not an
unjust aggressor against their lives, and, consequently, their only plea
was that of expediency.

"In a chapter in which he deals with the exception created by necessity,
Lord Hale, quoted by Justice Coleridge, thus expresses himself:

"'If a man be desperately assaulted and in peril of death, and cannot
otherwise escape, except by killing an innocent person then present, the
act will not acquit him of the crime and punishment of murder; for he
ought rather to die himself than to kill an innocent.'

"In the case of two men on a plank at sea, which can only support one,
the right of one occupant to throw the other overboard to save his own
life, and in the instance of sailors, to save themselves, throwing
passengers in the sea, are equally condemned by Lord Coleridge as
unjustifiable homicide. So that under no circumstances is it allowable
to kill an innocent aggressor to save your own life. I say _innocent_
aggressor; but it is allowed, in self-defence, to kill, if necessary, an
_unjust_ aggressor against your life.

"This case is exactly analogous to that of the child lying helpless in
its mother's womb. She causes its death by her consent to the act of her
agent, the physician in attendance.