Boren v. Bartleson

Citations

• 39 Ill. 43

Syllabus

<p>1. Self-defense—assault and lattery. While the law makes reasonable allowance for the infirmity of human judgment under the influence of sudden passion, and does not require men to measure with mathematical exactness the degree of force necessary to repel an assault, yet there are some broad landmarks beyond which this benignity of the law should not be carried.</p> <p>3. In this case, which was an action of trespass for an assault and battery, it appeared the defendant used insulting language to the plaintiff, whereupon the plaintiff pushed or struck him in the breast. The defendant stepped back and drawing a revolver, snapped it at the plaintiff, and then, advancing upon him, struck him upon the head with the pistol, the blow felling him to the ground, and producing a severe wound, which confined him to his house for several days. The plaintiff had been in feeble health prior to the diflaculty, and had retreated a few feet when the defendant struck him. A judgment in favor of the defendant, upon a verdict of not guilty, was reversed because the verdict was contrary to the evidence, it being held that the defendant used more force than he had a right to consider needful for his own protection.</p> <p>3. New trials—verdict contrary to evidence. When, in criminal trials, juries improperly acquit defendants upon some false hypothesis of self-protection, their verdicts are beyond the power of the court But where that is done in a civil case, manifestly against the evidence, the verdict should not be allowed to stand.</p>