The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1867-10-30

immaterial substance in the eyes OF
person, was clearly an assault and
battery. 1t would not do to say this
was sport, as that was what the old
woman said when she skinned the
cells; of course she did not want TO
hurt them
Defendants counselsaid he did not
doubt that the young men engaged IN
this work were eprehensibie. He had
said this was not assault and battery,
and he now challenged the District
Attorney to point Ctoia SINCE case IN
the books where anything bearing
even a, ssemblahce to this was held to
BET assault and battery. This lady
might have been annoyed, but she
swssaao Il dbjured in. any way. In the
ease of a man WhoIput a. drug "a tan-
,gible Athing) in Equor, it was held not
to. be, an ASA alt and battery.
The judge 9 nm char ging the jury,
said the case presented novel and
interest ting point OF slaw. It was NEG
essary FIRST to consider what consti-
tuted an assault. An assault was an
intehtion by violence TO do injury to
another If then man in any way
attempts to do injury to another. he
is guilty OF an assault. Can 1t be that
a rufian could enter room and suf-
focate the inmates by means of chic
reform, and be guilty of no
ofense, assuming that he was not
guilty of burglary or at an at
tempt to steal ? 1t might be that
man would enter a house for a good
purpose, and be suddenly seized with
the idea 1of committing such an act.
It cannot be possible that the law
would not hold this to be an assault.
What matters it whether a person
aims a loaded pistol at another, or
places chloroform so that the fumes
effect him, or concentrates the rays OF
the sun so they are thrown
in the eyes of person and per-
haps blinds him? The second
question is, perhaps, more difficult
one, as to this act constituting bat
terry. The rays. Of a light are a mate
rial substance, and, so to speak, they
can be gathered together, and cast in
the eyes of person. 1t is. well
known that all substances, however
ethereal, are yet material, and if a
person throw snow, water, or vapor
from heated water-that Is steam-on
another, he would undoubtedly be
guilty OF an assault and battery.
A man might hold a trum-
pet to the ear Of another and
deafen him BY throwing the noises Of
soundAthat is, the material Of sound
could be actually thro@n into the ear.
1t. mattered not how ethereal the
things referred to may Be, they were
nevertheless substances. Take cleo
tricity, as an instahce, and if any one
doubted its being a substance, let
them examine building struck by
lightning. The jury must determine
whether or not this defendant made
an attempt to do an injury by violence.
1t is possible for man, who had
the rays of light thrown in his eyes,
to be so affected thereby that he
would fail from an elevation and re-
ceive great Injuries. IF, however,
this defendant had glasses on the
roof, and the light from them was ac-
cidentally cast into the eyes of the
lady, it would not be an assault and
battery If, however, it was delibe-
rately done for the purpose Of annoy
ance and injury, then, in his opinion,
it was case of assault and battery.
In conclusion, the judge said he
had not had any length of time in
he reserved the right to change his
views upon an argument either before
himself or the court in banc, should
it be necessary.
The jury retired, and after a short
deliberation rendered a verdict of
guilty Of assault and bait Try.