Case Name: Chrisman vs. Hunter
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1835-04-28
Citations: 3 Dana 83
Docket Number: 
Parties: Chrisman vs. Hunter.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 83–83

Head Matter:
Chrisman vs. Hunter.
Trespass— As’It ¡[battery.
[Mr. Clarke for Plaintiff: Mr. Owsley for Defendant.]
From the Circuit Court for Jessamine County.
April 28.
Two men, having fought, separate entirely; but soon meet again, and renew the combat. These are distinct batteries; and the assailant in the second can not justify by showing that his adversary was the assailant in the first. But that, fact might go in mitigation of damages.
To an action for an assault and battery (where there had been two fights between the parties onthesameday) deft pleads son assault; on that plea — the plaintiff does not new assign — they go to trial, deft’s evidence relates to the last fight only: evidence relating to the previous, distinct combat (in which def’t was first assailant.,) is inadmissible, and if given, should be excluded.

Opinion:
Chief Justice Robertson
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This is an action of trespass for an assault and battery, on the trial of which, it appeared that there had been two batteries on the same day.
As there was no new assignment in the replication to the plea of son assault, and as the evidence introduced by the defendant in the action, (plaintiff here,) in support of his plea, applied exclusively to the last battery, the Circuit Judge erred in not excluding the evidence as to the first battery, and in telling the jury, as he in effect did, that they might infer that there had not been two distinct batteries, and that the last was only a continuation of the first.
The parties having been separated and having gone, each out of the sight of the other, into different houses, befoje the commencement of their last rencounter, the jury could have had no pretext for deciding that the last battery was only a continuation of the first.
Had the defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the Circuit Court, been sued for the last battery, he certainly could not have justified by proving the first battery; because, when the last was commenced, there was no impending battery or assault to defend himself against or to repel. And consequently, though the first battery might have mitigated the damages for the last, it could not have justified it.
Wherefore, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.