A mere trespass on land does not justify an assault with a deadly weapon ; Montgom eiy v. Com., 98 Va. 840, 36 S. E. 371; State v. Lightsey, 43 S. C. 114, 20 S. E. 975; State v. Zellers, 7 N. J. L. 220; as where one threw down a fence and drove over a wheat field, on account of snow drifts; State v. Talley, 9 Houst. (Del.) 417, 33 Atl. 181; or where one tore down and carried away a fence ; State v. Matthews, 148 Mo. 185, 49 S. W. 1085, 71 Am. St. Rep. 594; or went on an other's land to remove crops; Rauck v. State, 110 Ind. 384, 11 N. E. 450. Other cases hold that if force be necessary, a deadly weapon may be used ; People v. Flanagan, 60 Cal. 2, 44 Am. Rep. 52; or if the owner has reason able ground for believing that he is in dan ger ; People v. Dann, 53 Mich. 490, 19 N. W. 159, 51 Am. Rep. 151. If the trespasser as sault him, he may be justified in killing; Ayers v. State, 60 Miss. 709; he may oppose force with force; Wenzel v. State, .48 Tex. Cr. R. 625, 90 S. W. 28; in the defence of his house; People v. Coughlin, 67 Mich. 466, 35
N. W. 72; so if the killing . is believed, in good faith and upon reasonable grounds, to be necessary in order to repel the assailant or prevent his forcible entry ; State v. Pea cock, 40 Ohio St. 333. In ejecting a tres passer or preventing a trespass, a deadly weapon is not justified unless the owner rea sonably believes that he is in danger of per sonal violence; State v. Howell, 21 Mont. 165, 53 Pac. 314; Sage v. Harpending, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 166. In Pryse v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 523, 113 S. W. 938, it was held that a person may use all the force necessary to protect his property, and if in danger of death or serious injury he may kill. In Hig gins v. Minaghan, 78 Wis. 602, 47 N. W. 941, 11 L. R. A. 138, 23 Am. St. Rep. 428, it was held that effectual means, by shooting or otherwise, was justifiable to drive away a charivari party who were causing fright to the owner's family and endangering their ll ves.