Cockcroft v Smith: Difference between revisions
SimLibrarian (talk | contribs) italics title, rm red See Also links (MOS:SEEALSO) |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|English tort law case}} |
|||
{{Italic title}}{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}} |
|||
'''''Cockcroft v Smith''''' (1705) 11 Mod 43 is an [[English tort law]] case. It concerned the definition of legitimate [[self defence]]. |
'''''Cockcroft v Smith''''' (1705) 11 Mod 43 is an [[English tort law]] case. It concerned the definition of legitimate [[self defence]]. |
||
==Facts== |
==Facts== |
||
Mr. Cockcroft ran his finger towards Mr. Smith's eyes. Mr. Smith bit off part of Mr. Cockcroft's finger. |
|||
==Judgment== |
==Judgment== |
||
| Line 13: | Line 15: | ||
*[[Battery (tort)|battery]] |
*[[Battery (tort)|battery]] |
||
*[[Self defence]] |
*[[Self defence]] |
||
*''[[Green v Goddard]]'' (1702) 2 Salk 641 |
|||
*''[[Lane v Holloway]]'' [1968] 1 QB 379 |
|||
*''[[Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police]]'' [2007] 1 WLR 398 |
*''[[Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police]]'' [2007] 1 WLR 398 |
||
*[[Criminal Law Act 1967]] s 3 |
*[[Criminal Law Act 1967]] s 3 |
||
| Line 25: | Line 24: | ||
[[Category:English tort case law]] |
[[Category:English tort case law]] |
||
[[Category:1705 in law]] |
[[Category:1705 in law]] |
||
[[Category:1700s in case law]] |
|||
[[Category:1700s in British law]] |
|||
[[Category:1705 in England]] |
[[Category:1705 in England]] |
||
[[Category:Lord Holt cases]] |
[[Category:Lord Holt cases]] |
||
[[Category:Court of King's Bench (England) cases]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 18:10, 27 November 2023
Cockcroft v Smith (1705) 11 Mod 43 is an English tort law case. It concerned the definition of legitimate self defence.
Facts
[edit]Mr. Cockcroft ran his finger towards Mr. Smith's eyes. Mr. Smith bit off part of Mr. Cockcroft's finger.
Judgment
[edit]Holt CJ said in the course of his judgment,
if a man strike another, who does not immediately after resent it, but take his opportunity, and then some time after falls upon him and beats him, in this case, son assault is no good plea; neither ought a man, in case of a small assault give a violent or an unsuitable return; but in such case plead what is necessary for a man's defence, and not who struck first; though this, he said, has been the common practice, but this he wished was altered; for hitting a man a little blow with a little stick on the shoulder, is not a reason for him to draw a sword and cut and hew the other...
See also
[edit]- English tort law
- battery
- Self defence
- Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2007] 1 WLR 398
- Criminal Law Act 1967 s 3
- Criminal Justice Act 2003 s 329
References
[edit]- B Feldthusen, 'The Canadian Experiment with the Civil Action for Sexual Battery' in NJ Mullany (ed) Torts in the Nineties (Sydney, Law Book Co 1997)