then A, for his safety, gives back and retreats to a wall, and B
still pursuing him with his drawn sword, A in his defense kills B;
this is murder in A. For A having malice against B, and in pursuance
thereof endeavoring to kill him, is answerable for all the
consequences of which he was the original cause. It is not
reasonable for any man that is dangerously assaulted, and when he
perceives his life in danger from his adversary, but to have liberty
for the security of his own life, to pursue him that maliciously
assaulted him; for he that has manifested that he has malice against
another is not at to be trusted with a dangerous weapon in his
hand. And so resolved by all the judges when they met at Seargeant's
Inn, in preparation for my Lord Morley's trial."

In the case here we will take Montgomery, if you please, when he was
attacked by the stout man with a stick, who aimed it at his head,
with a number of people round him crying out, "Kill them, kill
them." Had he not a right to kill the man? If all the party were
guilty of the assault made by the stout man, and all of them had
discovered malice in their hearts, had not Montgomery a right,
according to Lord Chief-Justice Holt, to put it out of their power
to wreak their malice upon him? I will not at present look for any
more authorities in the point of self-defense; you will be able to
judge from these how far the law goes in justifying or excusing any
person in defense of himself, or taking away the life of another who
threatens him in life or limb. The next point is this: that in case
of an unlawful assembly, all and every one of the assembly is guilty
of all and every unlawful act committed by any one of that assembly
in prosecution of the unlawful design set out upon.

Rules of law should be universally known, whatever effect they may