
    Pratt vs. Ayler.
    a«uuit".?d bMte-ry, fen-itmt of hi, ttaX1"agamst'tthe ’’’“"evidence '"to aggravate the da- , , „ , . mages sustained by the plaintiff, and as such ought to be considered by the jury, ¡
    Appeal from Queen-Jlnne’s County Court. Assault and battery by the appellee against, the appellant. Non cul and son assault demesne vVere pleaded. The plaintiff gave in evidence at the trial, that on the 24th of December 1816, 0,1 h's way to Centreviile, he met the defendant on the pub-lie road, that the defendant approached him, and drew a small sword from a cane which he had in his hand, and as he approached, asked him to show him the knife with which he had stabbed his brother E Pratt. That some conversation took place between them, and the defendant made a thrust at the plaintiff with the sword which lie held in his hand, ar.d wounded him in the breast, skin deep, from which a little blood issued. That some further conversation took place between them, and the defendant drew a knife, and told the plaintiff he would try blades with him, and made another thrust at him. The plaintiff also proved, that the defendant decle.red immediately afterwards, that he had made two elforls to kill the plaintiff, and that he would kill him. The defendant then proved, that about an hour before this affray he had seen his brother, E. Pratt, who had been wounded a short time before by the plaintiff? and that at the time he saw him, which was the first time he had any knowledge of his brother’s situation, it. was expected lie would die of the wound. That when the defendant saw his brother, he Was greatly agitated and incensed, and appeared not to be himself, and that he then declared he would have vengeance of the plaintiff! The defendant then prayed the court to direct the jury, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages for any supposed criminal intention on the part of the defendant, but only for the injury done, and indignity offered, by the defendant to the plaintiff. But the Court [Earle, Ch. J. and Worrell, A. J.] refused to give the instruction, being of opinion that the declarations of the defendant, of his criminal intentions against the plaintiff, were proper evidence to aggravate the damages sustained by the plaintiff, and as such ought to be considered by the jury. The defendant excepted? and the verdict and judgment being against him he appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. 3. and Johnson, Martin, and Dorsey, J.
    
      Carmichael and Chambers, ter the Appellant,
    cited 1 Bac. M). 156, *57. 1 Hawk. 264. 1 East’s C. L. 411; and 5 Com. Mg. 582.
    
      Harrison, and P, B. Hopper, for the Appellee.
   Jtm&MEOT AFFIRME»»  