Talk:Tuberville v Savage

A great start. Does anyone know anything about the characters involved (e.g. social position, names) and what setting it was in? Wright123 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I found some more interesting information about this case:


 * D placed his hand on his sword and said to V that, If it were not assize-time, he would tell him more of his mind.
 * V ‘defended himself’ when there had been no assault, 'D's response was to remove V's eye.'  
 * Held: As the judges were in town D would not have used force on V.
 * No assault, finding for D Wright123 22:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The interesting thing is that the background in the article is actually wrong, as it implies that the action was for assault when in fact it was whether the plaintiff's actions were sufficient to constitute an assault so as to justify the defendant's assault, battery, and wounding of him. I'll fix that presently.  Incidentally, can anyone confirm with certainty that Tuberville was the plaintiff and not merely the plaintiff-in-error? Ari (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Tuberville was the plaintiff. Also the decision that what he did was not an assault was strictly obiter. There may well have been an assault if he placed his hand on his sword before saying the now famous words, but it would not have affected the outcome of the case. What the decision really means is that if you are going to make a pre-emptive strike against a person, you have to believe that you are about to be attacked. Savage didn't - because of what Tuberville said; that's why he was held liable. See (if I remember correctly, since I was looking this up last night) Glanville Williams, Textbook of the Criminal Law at pp 174 to 175. The common conception about what this case decides is WRONG. James500 (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Query: perhaps someone could confirm that "pleading a provocation" is not equivalent to bring a counterclaim. Or I'll check. James500 (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Section 'treatment' has nothing to do with this case - OAPA 1861 didn't even exist in 1669
I have moved the following remarks to this page, as I think they have nothing to do with this case at all:

To constitute assault under English law, s.16, Offences against the Person Act 1861, the person to whom a threat is made must be put in fear of immediate actual physical harm. An assault may be committed against a third party if that third party is immediately proximal to the person to whom the threat was made; for example "if you do, [or don't do] a particular thing, I'll kill your [relative]". This is an example of a threat promimally sufficient to constitute an assault against the third party, and quite probably, against the person to whom the threat was made.

"s16. A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years."

James500 (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
What actually happened was that the gentleman who's actions were in question put his hand on the hilt of his sword (a customary action, a veiled threat, as if to draw it) and stated 'If the Assize were not in town, I would run you through' This classic case is an example used to illustrate the need for the coincidence of mens rea and actus reus (where neccesary) to prove these vital elements of an offence. Therefore there was no coincidence; the words spoken (mens rea) cancelled out or negated the action (actus reus) I think the article on this case is poorly written. (Alanalan001 (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC))