Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 Cal. 598

Baker v. Hope

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1875

California Supreme Court · decided 1875-07-01

<p>Appeal from the District Court, First Judicial District County of Santa Barbara.</p> <p>The complaint charged that the defendant, on the 30th day of July, 1873, willfully, maliciously and violently assaulted the plaintiff, and struck him on the head and hands with a heavy club, and knocked him down, and bruised him, to his damage five thousand dollars. The answer denied that the defendant willfully or maliciously or violently assaulted the plaintiff, or that he struck him with a heavy club, and denied damages. It then admitted that the defendant struck the plaintiff “with a piece of fence pole,” and contained matters of alleged justification. The case was tried before a jury. The Court charged the jury as follows:</p> <p>“The defendant admits that he struck the plaintiff substantially as charged, but claims that he did so in the lawful and necessary protection of his property.”</p> <p>The testimony was not brought up in the transcript. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for one thousand dollars, and judgment was rendered on the verdict. The defendant appealed from the judgment.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1909

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

¶1We think the first instruction given by the Court below is not obnoxious to the criticism to which it is subjected in appellant’s brief. The District Court properly asserted judicial knowledge of the fact that a "fence pole” is a "heavy club;’’ and when the Court said : " The defendant admits that he struck the plaintiff substantially as charged,” it was a statement of an admission that he struck with a heavy club, and not of the alleged malice accompanying the blow. Nor do we think the other points made by the appellant are well taken.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

¶3Neither Mr. Chief Justice Wallace nor Mr. Justice Niles expressed an opinion.

/49/cal/598 · .json · Public domain