"Putting the hand on a person is an equivocal act, and may have been friendly," said the counsel as a last hope. "Doubtless," replied the court. "It is true that a laying on of the hand may be friendly, but here the defendant said at the time that it was not in friendship. I once thought we were friends,' said he. And he preceded the act by a threat. And the act itself was so violent and insolent as to make it unequivocal." Whereupon the conviction was affirmed. The least violence to another is a battery. Taking hold of a man's coat or laying the hand upon his person, if done in friendship or for any benevolent purpose, would clearly not be an assault and battery, but if done in anger, or in a rude and insolent manner, it certainly would. U. S. v. Ortega, 4 Wash. 535. Where one woman who was painting in a room upstairs sprinkled a few drops of paint on a creditor, also a female, who was passing along the sidewalk, this was held sufficient to constitute an assault and battery. People v. McMurray, 1 Wheel. 62. So to spit on a person or throw water or anything else on his clothes; or to cut another's dress without touching the person (Reg. v. Day, 1 Cox, 207); or to fondle a person (especially a female) against their will. In an English case some parties, for the purpose of abandoning an infant child, put it in a bag and hung it on the palings of a fence exposed to the inclemency of the weather. This was held enough to constitute the offense. Reg. v. March, 1 C. & K. 497. Force of some kind on the person is the gist of battery. One Buzzell had two bank notes in his hand which he was going to put up on a bet made by Ordway, but before he could do so Ordway snatched them from his hand and ran away. The court held that there was no assault and battery, there being no touching of the person. Com. v. Ordway, 12 Cush. 270. But where there is the least resistance overcome it is an assault and battery- the force necessary is present. Mooney and Gorham knowing that Loheil had a roll of bills in his pocket, laid for him. Mooney put his left arm around Loheil's neck and his mouth to Loheil's ear, pretending, to whisper something, and while Loheil was listening he put his hand in his pocket. But Loheil felt the hand and there was a struggle before Mooney got his hand out of the pocket. It was held that Mooney was guilty of an assault with intent to rob. State v. Gorham, 55 N. H. 152. ASSAULT-FORCE MAY BE INTERNAL. A COMMONWEALTH v. STRATTON. [114 Mass. 303.] young man who wanted his sweetheart to be less cold than she was, obtained from a quack some love powders which he was assured were the very thing for such a case. The next time he called on her he had some nice figs in his pocket in which some of the powders were concealed. The young lady, of course, liked figs and it was therefore an easy matter to get her to take the medicine in this disguise. But instead of making her amorous, the love powders made her sick, and when, after a good deal of pain, she got well, her lover was indicted for assault. it "Although force and violence," said the court, "are included in all definitions of assault and battery, yet where there is physical injury to another person, is sufficient that the cause is set in motion by the defendant, or that the person is subjected to its operation by means of any act or control which the defendant exerts. If one should hand an explosive substance to another and induce him to take it, by misrepresenting or concealing the dangerous qualities, and the other, ignorant of its character, should receive it and cause it to explode in his pocket or hand, and should be injured by it, the offending party would be guilty of a battery and that would necessarily include an assault, although he might not be guilty even of an assault, if the substance failed to explode, or failed to cause any injury. It would be the same if it exploded in the mouth or stomach. If that which causes the injury is set in motion by the wrongful act of the defendant, it can not be material whether it acts upon the person injured externally or internally, by mechanical or chemical force." And the lover was therefore convicted. This case is a very important one, deciding as it does that to constitute an assault application of force may be external or internal. This may be said to be the American law, as the opinion of a court of so high a character as that by which this decision was rendered, is not likely to be overruled or dissented from. It is not, however, the English law. In 1838 Edward Button who was a waiter at an inn in London, bought two pence worth of Spanish flies which he put into the coffee which had been prepared for the bar-maids' breakfast. When the girls drank the coffee they thought it rather bitter, and were shortly afterwards taken very sick. A doctor who was summoned, analyzed what was left in the coffee pot, and it was afterwards discovered that Button was the guilty man, for on being accused of it, he said he did it only for a lark. The judges convicted him of assault. Reg. v. Button, 8 C. & P. 660. But seven or eight years after this, where a couple of practical jokers had put some cantharides in the ale of which a bridal party partook, which caused bride and bridesmaids, as well as the groom and his friends, to send for the doctor in a hurry, the jokers escaped, the Queen's Bench holding that the injury must be external, unless the intent was to kill, in which case it was punishable as a higher crime. Queen v. Walkden, 1 Cox, 282. And this case has been since approved by others of the English judges. Reg. v. Hanson, 2 C. & K. 913. |