To set bounds to, mark the limits of. See DEFINITIO; DEFINITION. Full defense. In common-law practice, a defense made by the formula he "comes and defends the force and injury when and where it shall behoove him, the damages, and whatever else he ought to defend." Shortened into he "defends the force and injury, when," etc. Opposed, half-defense: made by the words he "comes and defends the force and injury, and says," etc.3 General defense. A general denial of decide judicially. the material allegations of a claim. A general denial is not equivalent to a general issue at common law. It only puts the plaintiff to proof of his substantial allegations. If the defendant has an affirmative defense in the nature of an avoidance he should plead it.4 Good, legal, sufficient, or valid defense. A defense which is ample or adequate in law as against the particular demand. Legal defense often stands opposed to equitable defense, q. v. No defense. Certificates are frequently required by proposed purchasers of mortgages standing in the name of the mortgagee or of his transferee, that the mortgagor has no defense, in equity or law, to a demand for payment thereof. Peremptory defense. That the plaintiff never had, or has not now, a right of action. Sham defense. A mere pretense of a defense, set up in bad faith, and without color of fact. See further SHAM. Whenever one is assailed in his person or property, he may defend himself, for the liability and the right are inseparable. A sentence of a court pronounced against a party without affording him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights. There must be notice of some kind, actual or constructive. The period is a matter of regulation by positive law, rule of court, or established practice. See DAY, In court; ADMISSION, 2. 1 Parsons v. Denis, 2 McCrary, 360 (1881); Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 102 (1871). 2 Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Paine, 119 U. S. 561 (1887); Phillips v. Negley, 117 id. 675 (1886), cases; Herklotz v. Chase, 32 F. R. 433 (1887). $3 Bl. Com. 298. * Walker v. Flint, 3 McCrary, 510 (1882). • Windson v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 277 (1876), Field, J. 1. To make clear the design or scope of previous action; to remove doubt or uncertainty as to the meaning or application of; to determine authoritatively, settle officially, In popular meaning, often, to make clear and certain what was before uncertain or indefinite, to render distinct; but in legislation frequently has a broader signification. Many constitutional laws have been passed conferring powers and duties which could not be considered as merely explaining or making more clear those previously conferred or sought to be, although the word "define" was used in the title. In legislation the word is frequently used in creating, enlarging, and extending the powers and duties of boards and officers, and in defining and providing punishment for offenses - thus enlarging the scope of the criminal law. It may very properly be used in the title of a statute where the object is to determine or fix boundaries, especially where a dispute has arisen concerning them, whether the extent of territory included be enlarged or lessened.3 2. To enumerate or prescribe what act or acts shall constitute; to declare to be an offense. "To define piracies" is to enumerate the crimes which shall constitute piracy.4 Declaring that a certain act shall constitute an offense is "defining" that offense."