State v. Ratledge

<p>Assault and Battery</p> <p>The defendant was indicted at this term for an assault upon, one Charles W. Griffenberg at Glasgow in Pencader Hundred on the 8th day of August, 1904, in the store of Samuel Alrichs, where-the Regular Republican primary election for delegates to the State convention was being held. The plaintiff testified that he was sitting on the counter in said store and that the defendant and two ■or three others were standing around near him conversing about the manner in which the ticket for delegates had been made up and that he, Griffenberg, became angry and remarked “ Do you Union Republicans think you have a right to vote here to-day ?” accompanying the remark with a gesture or wave of the hand towards a group of men including the defendant; that thereupon the defendant stepped up to the prosecuting witness and hit him a blow with his clenched fist on the left cheek from which he suffered pain for ¡several days. That the prosecuting witness then said to the defendant “ You will have this to pay for,” to which the defendant replied, “Well, if I’ve got it to pay for, if you say so I will give you some more and pay for it all together.” There was some conflict of testimony as to whether the defendant struck the prosecuting witness with his open hand or clenched fist. The defendant testified that when Griffenberg made the gesture towards him he immediately struck the former a light blow thinking Griffenberg intended to strike him and that the assault on his own part was merely to resent the insulting conduct of Griffenberg. The defendant could not say positively whether his hand was open or ■closed when the blow was delivered.</p> <p>The defendant’s counsel in the course of his cross-examination of the prosecuting witness asked the latter whether he had brought a civil action for damages against the defendant Ratledge for the same assault for which the defendant was being tried.</p> <p>This was objected to by the Attorney-General as irrelevant. Mr. Reinhardt contended that the testimony was admissible in mitigation of the fine which might be imposed should the defendant be convicted, also as showing malice on the part of the complainant, citing 3 Cyclopaedia of Law and Procedure, (title, “Assault and Battery”), 157; Tatnall vs. Courtney, 6 Houst, 434)</p>