
    Daniel S. Bell v. Samuel Miller.
    Tarty advising or aiding in committing a trespass, liable though not personally present at the time of committing it.
    This cause was adjourned from the county of Champaign, on a motion for a new trial made by the defendant. The action was for an assault and battery; verdict for the plaintiff; damages sixty dollars. Three reasons were assigned for a new trial :
    1. That the court charged the jury, that if the defendant incited or in any degree promoted the commission of the assault and battery upon the plaintiff, he was liable in this action, though not in a situation to afford any actual aid to the person who committed it.
    2. That subsequent to the trial, the defendant ascertained that .a material witness examined for the plaintiff was interested in the -cause. ■ .
    3. That the verdict was against both law and evidence.
    Anthony, in support of the motion,
    cited 2 Ohio, 169; 2 Stark. Ev. 356, n. 1; 1 Term, 167; Ld. Raym. 274; 3 Wils. 18; 2 New R. 446; 3 East, 599.
    *The plaintiff cited 4 Black. Com. 36; Chitty Plead. 67, 180; 2 Stark. Ev. 6, 10.
   By the Court :

All concerned in the commission of a trespass are considered principals. An assault and battery may be committed by a party not present, if he be a principal actor in or adviser and promoter -of making the attack. If one person employ another to commit an assault and battery or any other trespass, and the act is perpetrated, both are guilty, and both responsible in damages. It was not supposed that this was now a debatable question. There is no error in the charge of the court.

The record contains no proof of the fact that the interest of the witness was discovered after the trial, nor of the nature- and extent of that interest. In this state of the case that suggestion amounts to nothing. The same remark is applicable to the complaint that the verdict was against evidence. The evidence is not before this court, and consequently can not be acted upon.

New trial refused.  