¶1 refused the nonsuit, on the ground that the action of trespass assault and battery is a transitory action, and the venue, need not be proved.
¶2 The defence offered to prove the declarations of the plaintiff’s father. Objected to. '
¶3 Mr. Bayard.—George Hammer is merely a nominal party, as the next friend of the plaintiff.
¶4 Mr. Rogers.—He is entitled to the fruits of the verdict.
¶5 Mr. Bayard.—Damages for an injury to the child are as mtich his as a legacy left him.
¶6 The evidence was ruled out.
¶7 Verdict for plaintiff $203 00.