Case ID: mass_15/html/0439-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Seth Sampson versus Henry Coy.
    In an action of trespass for breaking and entering the dwelling-house of the plaintiff, and doing other enormities to him, he cannot give evidence of an assault upon him.
    Thf. plaintiff declared in trespass, for that the said Coy, at, &c., on, &c., broke and entered the plaintiff’s close, cut down and carried away ten tons of his grass then and there growing, and broke and entered his dwelling-house, and took and carried away sundry articles of household furniture, of the value, &,c., and other enormities then and there did, &c.
    The general issue was pleaded and joined ; and also soil and freehold in the defendant, which was traversed. At the trial of these issues before Thatcher, J., the plaintiff was permitted to give evidence, not only of the trespasses specially charged in the declaration, but also of an assault upon his person by the defendant, when forcibly entering the dwelling-house, and of a detention of the house and * close for the space of four weeks; and the judge instructed the jury that they might lawfully take into consideration, and give exemplary damages for, the said assault, and also the full amount of all the injury the plaintiff had sustained by being kept out of the house and close during the said four weeks.
    The defendant moved for a new trial, on account of the admission of the said evidence, and the instructions of the judge thereon.
    
      
      Mellen, in support of the motion.
    The plaintiff, under the general allegation of alla enormia, cannot show an injury which is of itself a substantial cause of action.
    
      Fessenden.
    
    The evidence was not objected to at the time it was offered; but it was argued fully to the jury by the counsel for the defendant, as well as the counsel for the plaintiff. It is too late, after the verdict, to make this objection the ground of a motion for a new trial. 
    
    
      
       13 Mass. Rep. 513, Curtis & Al. vs. Jackson.
      
    
   Curia.

The general principle is that, under alla enormia, nothing can be given in evidence which would of itself form a substantia] ground of action ; but such matter should be specially averred. The reason is, that the defendant cannot be supposed to come prepared to defend against any cause of action of which he has no notice in the declaration.

Thus, under the allegation of breaking and entering the dwelling-house, evidence may be given of keeping the plaintiff out; because that is a consequence of the wrongful entry ; and the time need not be specially averred. But an assault and battery cannot be proved, for the reasons aforesaid,

A new trial was granted, with leave to the plaintiff to amend his declaration upon terms. 
      
      
         1 Chitty, Pl. 442, 5th Land, ed— 2 Phill. Ev. 134.