Court Opinion

ID: 9675437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:54:01.344203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:34.569586
License: Public Domain

WARD, Justice,
dissenting.
I now respectfully dissent. No amount of rationalization or worthy suggestion of what the trial Court should have done can void the conflict as exists in the present verdict. The jury first determined that the Defendant, Brown, committed an assault and battery upon the Plaintiff and an assault and battery was defined as the use of any unlawful violence to the person of another. The jury next determined that Brown was acting in self-defense and self-defense was defined in the usual manner of excuse or justification for what would otherwise be unlawful violence. The majority opinion is in conflict with Pon Lip Chew v. Gilliland, supra, and until the Supreme Court determines the issue to the contrary, it should be followed. The cause should be reversed and remanded.