
    The People vs. Thomas A. Powers.
    The defendant was indicted and tried on a charge of committing an Assault and Battery on the Rev. William Hogan, of the City ofPhiladelphia, on the 3d of June, 1823.
    The law *e person sacred: the least jjy another, is See the ca¿“^nged, Ante. p. 367, ’
    
      Assault, and Battery
    
    The facts of the case appeared to be as follows : Mr. Hogan had come to New York, on a visit, and dined o > i the City-Hotel, with the Rev. Mr. Doyle, a clergyman, In the afternoon they walked out together, and went on board the ship Amity, one of the Liverpooljiackets, from thence to the ship Alexander Mansfield. The defendans, it appeared, was on board, preparing for his passage to Europe, to which place he shortly after embarked, and was not present at the trial. It appeared that the prosecutor and Mr. Powers fell into conversation ; but which began it did not appear.
    The amount of Mr. Hogan’s testimony was as .follows : That Mr. Powers asked him if he was the Rev. Mr. Hogan of Philadelphia, and on receiving an answer in the affirmative, proceeded to ask him in relation to religious differences that existed in the well-known controversy among the Catholics of St. Mary’s church, in that city ; and finally asked him if he knew Mr. Sullivan, his cousin, there. Mr Hogan replied that he did. He then told Mr. Hogan, if he had not to sail to Europe, he would go to Philadelphia, and “ crack Mr. Sullivan’s neck.”" Mr. Hogan doubted his ability to do it, and offered to bet $ 100, and then to double the bet, at the same time telling Mr. Powers he was sorry that any differences should exist between Mr. Powers and his cousin ; that he was very well acquainted with Mr. Sullivan, in Philadelphia, and was his intimate friend ; and that if Powers would meet him at any public hotel, he would explain away any differences |hat existed between them ; and that Powers immediately exclaimed, “ What ! do you take his part ?” and immediately struck Mr. Hogan over the nose, broke spectacles, and injured him considerably.
    Being cross-examined by Messrs. Sampson and Graham, counsel for Powers, he said, that he supposed Powers was not in jest—that he offered to put down the money that Powers “ could not crack Sullivan’s neck that he did not shake hands on the bet, did not intend the meeting he proposed between himself and Powers to be a challenge to fight a duel—did not say his character should not screen him from cowardice ; that he was a gentleman and no priest; never meant to challenge Powers; no person would have thought so—Powers has entered warmly into church disputes—happened one hundred yards from the ship— thought Powers might be at the head of a gang, did not square off in a fighting attitude.
    Dr. Graham opened the -case for the defendant: he observed that if the prosecutor had consulted the spirit of the gospel, which he professed to preach, this prosecution would not have been heard of. If the dignity of his office hadr been insulted, if his person had been outraged, he would have a right to expect, and would find, redress in a court of justice ; a criminal court would then, however -disagreeable it was to some people, be the proper, and perhaps the only place, where redress and satisfaction might be obtained.
    But when they were able to show, as they certainly were in this case, that the complainant himself provoked the quarrel—when he himself was the aggressor, it ill comported with the sacred office he pretended to hold or the duties he affected to discharge, to make a complaint of this nature. The defendant was a very respectable man, and would disdain to lay his hand upon a priest ; and that Mr. Hogan, by the insolence of his conduct to him, acting> the part of a bravado, using language to him entirely unbecoming the quiet and peaceable disposition of a er, by precept and example, of the word of God—using the most boistrous language, and exhibiting menacing and threatening attitudes, saying, I’ll take Sullivan’s part, I’ll whip you, I am no priest, but a gentleman ; saying to Mr. Powers that his character should not screen him from cowardice. Mr. Powers was astonished and counfounded to receive such language from a priest, and replied' to him, Sir, are you in' earnest 1 Mr. Hogan says yes, and I’ll meet you in five minutes, 1 Mr. Powers then being provoked beyond endurance, raised bis hand and slapped his glove in Mr. Hogan’s, face, to protect himself from further insult and aggression. He contended that if these facts were proved to the satisfaction of the jury, there would be but one opinion of the result of this prosecution.
    The Rev. Mr. Doyle was called and sworn. He testified that he dined with the Rev. Mr. Hogan, at the City-Hotel, on the day laid in the indictment; and after dinner walked out together, as stated by Mr. Hogan, and saw Powers on board the vessel: that he did not introduce Mr. Hogan to him, supposing they were acquainted with each other. Powers appeared as if he did not wish to become acquainted with Hogan: and he presently went on shore and walked up the wharf a few yards, the witness and Powers soon following. They all joined in conversation, Hogan invited Powers to the City-Hotel to get wine, and presently they began to talk about Mr. Sullivan, in Philadelphia ; Powers telling him, if he was in Philadelphia* he “ would crack his neck,” and that if Hogan: was not a priest he would give the message to him to carry. Mr. g0gan to]¿ Powers he was not able to “ crack Mr. Sullivans neck,” and that he would meet him in five minutes, an(^ t*iat be wou^ bet Powers $200 of it, and put the into Mr. M’Carthy’s hands ; he is sure the bet offered was $200, and not one hundred, as stated by Mr. Hogan. When Hogan said he would meet him any where in favor of Sullivan, Powers exclaimed—What, you challenge me, and you a priest 1 Hogan said, Don’t think to get off with that ; I am no priest, but a gentleman. Powers cried out shame 1 shame 1 shame ! and struck him with his glove in the face, and not by his fist, as sworn to by Mr. Hogan ; that the parties were very violent, and appeared to be exceedingly enraged at each other; he expected every moment they wold strike each other. Mr. Hogan was not cool, as stated by him, but was exceedingly warm.
    The case was summed up to the jury, by Mr. Sampson, for the (defendant, who was very severe in his remarks upon the testimony and conduct of Mr. Hogan. He observed that Mr. Hogan had forgotten the wholesome and salutary principles and precepts of his Divine Master, so necessary to be known and practiced ; and had wantonly, and without provocation, challenged a respectable man, and had conducted, in other respects, contrary to those principles he professed to teach, &c.; was a bullying, boxing, fighting, and wine-drinking priest, &c.
    He contended that, by the evidence, Mr. Hogan was the aggressor—he used indecoras language to Mr. Powers—he offered to fight him in five minutes—he offered to stake money on a trial of strength between Mr. Powers and Sullivan, his. cousin—he menaced him with an immediate attack. In such a case, he contended that Powers was justified in slapping Mr. Hogan in the face with his glove: it was an involuntary act—the result of enraged and indignant feelings at the insult and abuse he received from the prosecutor ; and notwithstanding the timony of Mr. Hogan was, that it was a violent blow with the fist, it was clear, by the testimony of Mr. Doyle, a respectable clergyman, that the blow was nothing more than a slap of the glove in the face. He was well aware that by the rules of law, the least violence to a person in a menacing and angry manner, was an assault and battery ; but he thought this an involuntary acton the part of Mr. Powers, occasioned by the heated temper and menacing and threatening words and attitudes of the prosecutor ; and was an exception to the rule. The feelings of every man might be operated upon and worked up to such a degree of contempt of the person, and honest indignation for the abuse received, and danger apprehended, that he could not restrain himself; and if not guilty of a greater indiscretion than the one proved to have been committed by Mr. Powers, the law would not adjudge it an assault and battery, but would attribute it to the right case, an involuntary act, induced by the improper conduct of the complainant himself.
    
      Price, counsel for Mr. Hogan,
    replied, that he could see no occasion for the severe strictures made by the counsel for the defendant, upon the conduct and character of Mr. Hogan, and observed, that by whatever degree of forbearance Mr. Powers had been actuated, he had imparted none to his counsel. He admitted that Mr. Hogan had a religious controversy, and it was his glory that he had— that controversy had been published to the world ; it was a matter of notoriety. He observed, that the counsel for the defendant was much older than himself, and that he should not be surprised if he did yet, before he died, express sorrow and regret for the reflections he had this day cast Mr. Hogan. The character of Mr. Hogan, however, had nothing to do with the case, and whatever difference there was in the relation of facts between Mr. Hogan and Mr., Doyle, it appeared by the testimony of Mr. Doyle himself, that violence was used to the person of Mr. Hogan, by slapping a glove in his face. This was enough to support the prosecution. The least violence to the person is sufficient.
   The Court observed, the least violence to the person of another, was an assault and battery. The law deemed the person of a man sacred, and would not allow the least violence to it. And this is not so much for the injury that might he offered and suffered, as the insult and indignity. Spitting in the face was not calculated to injure the person, yet it was a violent outrage and assault upon the person, an indignity to, and contempt for, the feelings of a man, not to be tolerated. It appears, by the testimony in this ease, that Mr. Powers struck Mr. Hogan, either with his fist br his glove, and either was sufficient, as it does not appear^ that this blow was necessary for self-defence. He was, therefore, guilty of an assault and battery if the jury should believe the evidence, and should also believe the act amounted to an assault and battery.

The jury found the defendant guilty without leaving the box.  