Odger's English Common Law

ASSAULT AND BATTERY.
473
Or the defendant may be able to show that it was by
the consent of the plaintiff that he laid hands upon him.
Thus, no action for battery would lie for damages received in a boxing
match or a game of football, unless the plaintiff could show that the
defendant in causing the injury complained of had flagrantly violated the
rules which governed the match or game, and under which the plaintiff had
consented to take part in the contest.
Again, the defendant may be able to show circumstances
which justify the battery of which the plaintiff complains.
Thus it may be that the plaintiff first struck the defendant
the defendant would be entitled to defend himself from
such attack, but not to continue his reprisals after the
plaintiff has desisted, for to do so would be to assume the
offensive. So in defence of< goods or possessions a man may
justify laying hands upon another, who wrongfully seeks to
deprive him of them, provided he does not use more force
than is necessary for the purpose ; and so may his servant. 1
But a mere " apprehension of danger to either his goods or his
person" will not be sufficient. 2 Again, a parent or master is
justified in giving moderate correction to his child, his scholar
or his apprentice. Other circumstances may justify an act
which is prima facie a battery, as where some person in
authority is compelled to use some degree of force to maintain
order or to prevent a breach of the peace.
Thus, the captain of a vessel is justified in committing an assault upon
a passenger where such assault is necessary for the preservation and
maintenance of good order and discipline on board. 3 Similarly a churchwarden
or beadle may, in the exercise of his office, seize and turn out of
church a man who is disturbing the # congregation by improper behaviour
during the performance of divine service, provided no unnecessary violence
be employed. 4 A coroner has the power to order the expulsion of any one
who in his opinion is hindering the proceedings of his Court. 5 So had
a revising barrister, 6 But where a revising barrister in 1875 ordered the
expulsion of a person who had in 1874 wilfully withheld material evidence
i Eastern Counties By. Co. v. Broom (1851), 6 Exoh. 314.
s Per Blackstone, J. (dissenting), in Scott v. Shepherd (1773), 1 Smith, L. C,
12th ed. at p. 517.
» Noden v. Johnson (1850), 16 Q. B. 218.
* Burton v. Benson (1842), 10 M. & W. 105 ; and see Butler v. Manchester, $0.,
By. Co. (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 207 ; Harrison v. Duke of Rutland, [1893] 1 Q. B. 142.
* Garnett v. Ferrand (1827), 6 B. & C. 611.
6 County Voters Registration Act, 18S5 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 36), s. 16.
;