Bartlett v. Churchill
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass for assault and battery. Plea, son assault demesne ; the plaintiff replied de injuria. The suit was referred under a rule from the county court, and the referees reported the following facts: “ That on the third day of June, 1849, a colt of the defendant “ got into the meadow of plaintiff. The plaintiff sent his boy to “the defendant, requesting him to take his colt out.
Read the full summary
Trespass for assault and battery. Plea, son assault demesne ; the plaintiff replied de injuria. The suit was referred under a rule from the county court, and the referees reported the following facts: “ That on the third day of June, 1849, a colt of the defendant “ got into the meadow of plaintiff. The plaintiff sent his boy to “the defendant, requesting him to take his colt out. The defend- “ ant went to the plaintiff’s house and informed him that his fence “ was down, and that it would be of no use to take the colt out, “unless the fence was repaired. The plaintiff denied that his “fence…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Isham, J.
This case is brought here on a report of referees, on which the county court rendered judgment pro forma for the plaintiff. The question has arisen whether under the replication of de injuria to the plea of son assault demesne evidence can be received and a recovery had for an excessive battery. This re*221plication is considered merely as a simple denial of the facts stated in the plea, and the evidence should be confined to the facts there stated, as they only are put in issue by the pleadings.
Under the English practice and by a uniform course…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Emerson v. BrownSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1821
3Cited by1 opinion
- Souter v. CodmanSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1883