Case ID: scl_20/html/0625-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’Neall, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mathison & Kingsby v. John Hanks.
    
      Before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Anderson, Spring Term, 1835.
    ^ m SaiiU opí°bat-^r„]othatti!o petty in assault itud battery ra^y proceed bptu ci-n'ai^quostioii"
    
      Sum. pro. on note, The defence was that the note was given in satisfaction of an assault and battery, and the consideration was therefore illegal. His Honor overruled the defence, and decreed for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
   O’Neall, J.

. I agree fully with the judge below, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. In assaults and batteries the rule now is, that the party injured may proceed both civilly and criminally: formerly he was compelled to elect one as his remedy, and to abandon the other ; and I am prepared, whenever the occasion may arise, tp return to tho old rule. This double remedy is unnecessary; for the uniform practice in England and in this State, is, when the prosecutor is the party injured, and the defendant makes adequate reparation to him, to impose only a nominal fine. ' The consideration of the note in question was the injury done to the payee by the assault and battery committed by the defendant; that was a good and legal consideration. In the case of Cor-ley v. Williams, 1 Bail. 588, the note was given by the sureties of an absent defendant to stop the prosecution — that was a contract to stop the course of justice, and, as such, was illegal.

Burt, for the motion.

The motion is dismissed.

Johnson and Harper, Js. concurred.