Stephens v. Myers

A parish meeting voted to turn a noisy member out of the room. He said he would rather pull the chairman out of the chair, and advanced on him with a clenched fist. A churchwarden stopped him before he was near enough to strike.

Quick Revision

Read the full judgment: BAILII

Parties

Stephens — plaintiff; acted as chairman at a parish meeting.

Myers — defendant; who sat at the same table and was voted to be turned out.

Procedural History

1. The report is dated 17 July 1830 and names the Court of Common Pleas. The report records the trial evidence, the defence submission, the summing up and the verdict.
2. The report gives the citation (1830) 4 C & P 349, 172 ER 735, and the neutral citation [1830] EWHC KB J37.
3. The report does not name the bench in its "Before" heading. It records only that Tindal, C.J. summed up to the jury.
4. Counsel: Andrews, Serjt., and Steer for the plaintiff; Spankie, Serjt., and Thesiger for the defendant.
5. The report records no appeal and no later step.

Facts

1. The plaintiff was acting as chairman at a parish meeting. He sat at the head of a table.
2. The defendant sat at the same table. About six or seven persons sat between him and the plaintiff.
3. During an angry discussion the defendant was very vociferous (loud). He interrupted the proceedings of the meeting.
4. A motion was made that he should be turned out. It was carried by a very large majority.
5. The defendant then said he "would rather pull the chairman out of the chair, than be turned out of the room".
6. He immediately advanced with his fist clenched towards the chairman.
7. The churchwarden, who sat next but one to the chairman, stopped him.
8. The defendant was not near enough at that time for any blow he might have meant to reach the chairman.
9. The witnesses said it seemed to them that he was advancing with an intention to strike the chairman.

Issues Raised

1. Is it an assault when the defendant, advancing with a clenched fist, is stopped before he is near enough to strike?
2. Does the law require a present ability to carry out the threat, and what suffices where the defendant is stopped in mid-advance?

Arguments Contended

For the defendant (Myers)

1. Spankie, Serjt., argued on this evidence that no assault had been committed.
2. From the situation of the parties, the defendant had no power to execute his threat.
3. There was not a "present ability". He had not the means of executing his intention at the time he was stopped.
4. The report cites no authority for this argument.

For the plaintiff (Stephens)

1. The report does not record any argument for the plaintiff. Andrews, Serjt., and Steer appeared for him.
2. The plaintiff's case rests on the evidence recorded under Facts, including the witnesses' impression that the defendant was advancing to strike.

Court's Reasoning

Tindal, C.J. (summing up to the jury)

1. Noted: Not every threat, where there is no actual personal violence, is an assault.
2. Held: In all cases there must be "the means of carrying the threat into effect".
3. Noted: The question left to the jury was whether the defendant was advancing at the time in a threatening attitude to strike the chairman.
4. Noted: The jury had to ask whether his blow would almost immediately have reached the chairman if he had not been stopped.
5. Held: If he was advancing with that intent, it is an assault in law, though he was not near enough at the time to have struck.
6. Held: If he was advancing so that within a second or two he would have reached the plaintiff, it is an assault in law.
7. Noted: Only if the jury thought he was not advancing to strike the plaintiff could they find for the defendant.
8. Noted: Otherwise the jury must find for the plaintiff and give damages according to the nature of the case.

Authorities

• The report records no case cited by counsel or by the Court. No authority is relied on, followed, distinguished, overruled or quoted.
• No section of any statute or article is mentioned.

Judgement

1. Verdict for the plaintiff.
2. Damages of 1s. (one shilling).
3. The report records no order on costs and no other direction.

Legal Principle / Ratio

A threat without actual violence is not always an assault. There must be the means of carrying it into effect. A defendant who advances to strike, and would have reached the plaintiff within a second or two if not stopped, commits an assault.

Key holding: "there must, in all cases, be the means of carrying the threat into effect".

• Ratio: an advance with intent to strike, stopped only by others, is an assault if the blow would almost immediately have landed.
• Obiter: the report records none.

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• The report is a short trial note. It records a summing up, not a reasoned judgment, and gives no authorities.
• The test is left to the jury: whether the blow would almost immediately have reached the chairman. The phrase a second or two is given as an example, not a fixed limit.
• The report does not say how far the defendant was from the chairman when stopped. It says only that he was not near enough for a blow to reach.
• The report does not discuss whether the chairman actually feared a blow. The Court's test turns on the defendant's advance and intent.

Significance

• The case shows that a stopped advance can still be an assault where a blow was about to land.
• Commentary: the notes pair it with Cole v. Turner (1704), on unlawful contact in battery (actual unlawful contact). The judgment itself cites no case. BAILII's copy of the report is linked above.
• Commentary: it is often used to teach that assault needs no contact, and that the ability to strike is judged on the advance made.

Exam-Important Points

• Rule: there must be the means of carrying the threat into effect. An advance to strike that would land within a second or two is an assault.
• Trap: the defendant was never near enough to strike, yet was liable. Being stopped by a third person does not save him.
• Trap: not every threat is an assault. The defence of no ability to strike failed only because the jury found he was advancing to strike.
• Result: verdict for the plaintiff; damages 1s.
• Source note: the report gives no numbered paragraphs, no cited cases and no statutes.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. The judgment has no numbered paragraphs. The citation is not in the judgment text.