Hammer v. Pierce

TRESPASS assault and battery, per quod, the plaintiff lost the services of his son.

The action was for injuries to the plaintiff's son, by a blow from the defendant.

Mr. Rogers, for the defendant, raised and argued the question as to the form of action, contending that, on principle, it should be in case and not trespass. He cited 12 Com. Law Rep, 131; 13 Ibid 94; but

The Court, without hearing Bradford contra, decided that the action was well brought; and the plaintiff had a verdict.