's defence is that want, in barring his way jim by the coat, was the first to employ force, and that the assault committed by hima on the complainant was therefore justified Gri grounds of self-defence ax well jax of defence of his servant and of his property, both of which had [during the incident een seized by the complainant.
Tt is true, ax argued by defi ent's counsel, that under British Jaw proof that the prosecutor first essaalted or beat the defendant that the latter then assaulted the Prosecutor in self defence is a good answer by the defendant too Jcharge of assault, provided "the force employed by the latter is no more than is necessary for his self-protection, but this defence will not hold good when the prosecutor's prior assault was justifiable, The ease for the defence must therefore hang or fall on a determination ax to whether or not the [complainant in this euse was justi ed in employing forcible measures in order to prevent the defendant from removing his parcel without examination.
The defence contends that he was not so justified, arguing that the complainant's duties were mere-to keep a look out for persons Jeoming out of the Post Office and to direct them to the Octroi office. and that his authority did not ex: tend beyond these funct The Jdefence submits accordingly that, [defendant having refused or neglect fed to proceed as directed to. the examination of the ssment of duty, the complainant must accept his refusal and can only rely for redress on a complaint to the defendant's authorities,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.