Watson v. Hastings
Superior Court of Delaware
Action of trespass vi et armis. The facts sufficiently appear in the charge ,of the Court. The defendant’s pleas were not guilty, son assault demesne and statute of limitations.
Read the full summary
Action of trespass vi et armis. The facts sufficiently appear in the charge ,of the Court. The defendant’s pleas were not guilty, son assault demesne and statute of limitations. After proving by several witnesses that the defendant committed an assault and battery upon the plaintiff by striking him over the head with an ax helve at the defendant’s store in Delmar, Sussex County, on the evening of October 8th, 1895, the physician who had dressed the wound, alleged to have been produced thereby, was called to the stand to prove the nature and extent of the same. In cross-examination Mr. White…
1Opinion of the Court
Pennewirr, J:—
The Court think the evidence admissible. The plea of son assault demesne only admits the assault and trespass. It does not admit the infliction of any particular wound; and there were more then one alleged to have been inflicted in this case.
Suppose there had been a dozen wounds inflicted, all of which affected this plaintiff, we think the defendant should be allowed to show, if he can, that a particular wound was made in some other way than by his act. Or suppose this wouud in fact did result from some other cause, the defendant would be permitted to show it if he could.
We…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Birchard v. BoothWisconsin Supreme Court · 1856
- Townsend v. BriggsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Caldwell v. Central Park, North & East River RailroadNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1894
3Cited by7 opinions
- Jardel Co., Inc. v. HughesSupreme Court of Delaware · 1987
- Tipsword v. PotterIdaho Supreme Court · 1918
- Vansant v. KowalewskiSuperior Court of Delaware · 1914
- Stein v. Diamond State Telephone Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1929
- Le Fevre v. CrossanSuperior Court of Delaware · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.