Odger's English Common Law

318 ASSAULTS.
person crossing the road. 1 In every case the onus is on the
prisoner to prove that his act was unintentional and not the
result of any culpable negligence on his part.
(b) Lawful sport.—It is also a defence to an assault or
battery that the injury happened during the course of some
lawful sport or game. For example, if during a boxing
match with padded gloves, or a football or cricket match, a
man be injured, he cannot prosecute or sue the person whose
act caused the injury. It would be different if the game were
an unlawful one, e.g., a prize-fight, or if, though the game was
a lawful one, the assailant intended to inflict unnecessary
injury or was otherwise acting in flagrant disobedience to the
laws of the game.
(c) Official duty.—Again, it is a defence to any criminal
charge that it was the defendant's duty to do the act com-
plained of. For example, it is often the duty of every
officer of justice, and of all persons whom he summons to his
assistance, to do acts in the administration of the law which,
if done by other persons, would be indictable as batteries or
assaults. 2
So a railway guard may use reasonable force to
prevent any one entering a train in motion, and a sentry may
stop any unauthorised person from entering a royal palace or
a barracks.
(d) Eeasonable correction.—A parent has a right to inflict
reasonable chastisement on his child ; so has a schoolmaster
on his scholar. 3 But the child or scholar must be old enough
to appreciate correction. 4 And the chastisement must be
moderate and administered with a reasonable instrument.
In Chary v. Booth 6 the question raised was whether the headmaster of
a board school is justified in inflicting corporal punishment on a pupil who
has "misconducted himself outside the school, on his way to school, and out
of school hours. The Court (Lawrence, J. and Collins, J.) held the
schoolmaster had such authority, and remitted the case for the magistrates
to find whether the punishment administered was excessive.
1 Gibbons v. Pepper (1696), 4 Mod. 405.
2 See post, pp. 480, 481, and Hose v. Kempthorne (1910), 22 Cox, 356.
8 This right is expressly recognised by the freveation of Gruelty to Children Act,
1904 (4 Edw. VII. c. 15), s. 28, and by the Children Act, 1908 (8 Edw. VII. c. 67),
s. 37.
* B. v. Griffin (1869), 11 Cox, 402.
* [1893] 1 Q. B. 465.