Case ID: scl_1/html/0351-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State against Wood.
    No words assault^ aa
    ^ir^tTustf fy an enormous battery; Rut everysuch one’s ^ropor- ^ J;j‘® injury offered; otherwise the defendant himself becomes the ag-> gressor.
    THIS was upon an indictment for an assault, committed on Mrs. Rouple by the defendant, with a large stick, with which he gave her several severe blows, and left her speechless on the ground. The defendant justified, and produced u 1 evidence that the prosecutrix struck him first, two or three times, with'a cowskin. Mrs. Rouple then offered to give in evidence, words spoken by the defendant, injurious to her character and chastity; and for that reason endeavoured to justify the first assault. ^ r 4
    r 4 Upon this point the opinion of the court was taken, when, r tter argurtienty
    The Chief Justice, Judges Waties and Bay, resolved, that no words will justify an assault. Burke, J. being of a contrary opinion, that the jury ought, from the circumstances of the case, to be let into the whole provocation.
    
      The Attorney-General then contended, that this assault 'was an outrageous one, committed on a woman, and out' all proportion to the nature of the injury he had rer from her ; and therefore he ought, on this accou"’to considered as the aggressor, and punished as su-1”
    
      For the defendant it was answered, that the prosecutrix brought this injury on herself by beginning the affray, and striking the defendant first, and therefore ought to abide by the consequence.
   By the Court,

unanimously. The general rule of law is, “ that wherever the assault or battery proceeds from the “ plaintiff or prosecutor’s own fault, as where he gives the “ first blow, &c. there it is sufficient justification to the de-ei fendant.” But there must be, however, in all cases, some proportion between the battery given and the first assault. For Lord Holt lays it down as a rule, that the meaning of the plea son assault is, that the defendant struck in his own defence. Esp. 389. So that the degree of resistance ought to be in proportion to the nature of the injury offered ; that is, that it be sufficient to ward off such injury, and no more. For the moment a man disarms or puts it out of the power of the aggressor from doing him further injury, he ought to desist from using further violence ; and if he does commit any further outrage, he, in his turn, then becomes the aggressor. In Salk. 642. a question was, what assault was sufficient to maintain such a plea ? Lord Holt said, that Wyndham, J. would not allow such a plea, if it was an unequal return. His lordship then says, that for every as« sault he did not think it reasonable that a man should be hanged xvith a cudgel. That a small blow will not justify an enormous beating, &c. That the meaning of the plea was, that the defendant struck in his own defence. And of the same opinion were all the judges on this occasion, and verdict was against the defendant accordingly.