Howell v. Winters
| Decision Date | 21 May 1910 |
| Citation | 58 Wash. 436,108 P. 1077 |
| Parties | HOWELL et al. v. WINTERS. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Chehalis County; Ben Sheeks Judge.
Action by Julia Howell and others against John Winters. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
W. H Abel, for appellant.
Morgan & Brewer, for respondents.
On the 7th day of July, 1909, the plaintiff Julia Howell visited a store conducted by the defendant, John Winters, and his brother, in the city of Hoquiam, for the purpose of returning a corset purchased by her husband a few days before, and securing a return of the purchase price. The defendant and his brother denied that the purchase was made in their store, and refused to accept the corset or refund the money. In the controversy that arose between the parties over the return of the money the plaintiffs contend that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff Julia Howell, and used vile and opprobrious language towards her, for which damages were sought in this action. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum of $1,200. On motion for a new trial the court required them to remit the sum of $700 from the verdict, and, the remission being made, a judgment was entered for the residue, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
In its charge to the jury the court defined as assault as follows Upon this instruction the first error is assigned. It may well be doubted whether an erroneous definition of the term 'assault' would be prejudicial in this case, for all the testimony on the one side tended to show an actual battery, while the testimony on the other side tended to refute either an assault or a battery. But, regardless of this, we think the definition as given is substantially correct. An assault was formerly defined by our statute as 'an attempt in a rude, insolent, and angry manner unlawfully to touch, strike, beat, or wound another person, coupled with a present ability to carry such attempt into execution.' Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. § 7055, (Pierce's Code,§ 1572). This section was repealed by the new Criminal Code, and, so far as we are able to discover, the term 'assault' is not defined in the latter act. We must therefore look to the common law for a definition. Cooley defines the terms thus: 'An assault is an attempt, with unlawful force, to inflict bodily injuries on another, accompanied with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCollum
...is the state of mind of the assaulted person. Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug and Barge Co., 13 Wash.2d 485, 125 P.2d 681; Howell v. Winters, 58 Wash. 436, 108 P. 1077; Allen v. Hannaford, 138 Wash. 423, 244 P. The display of a pistol Before the jury and its admission in evidence in the state's ......
-
State v. Acosta
...today is consistent with the long-standing rule in Washington that a criminal assault requires unlawful force. See Howell v. Winters, 58 Wash. 436, 108 P. 1077 (1910) (civil assault); Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 13 Wash.2d 485, 125 P.2d 681 (1942) (civil assault); State v. Rush,......
-
State v. Condon, 88854–0.
...attempt if not prevented,’ ” or intentionally creates in the victim's mind a reasonable apprehension of harm (quoting Howell v. Winters, 58 Wash. 436, 438, 108 P. 1077...
-
In re Detention of Anderson
...creating the perception of an imminent physical harm accompanied by an apparent ability to carry out the harm. Howell v. Winters, 58 Wash. 436, 438, 108 P. 1077 (1910). 15. It does not contend disclosing sexual fantasies or breaking the rules at WSH can be considered recent overt acts. Ther......