Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Court discussed the relevance of mental element in the tort of battery. 

Facts 

• There was an altercation between the claimants (husband and wife) and defendant (Turner). 
• It was asserted by the claimants that they were physically harmed by defendant. 
• The altercation happened in a narrow street where the defendant allegedly moved past the claimants. 
• It was alleged that the defendant’s action was fueled with anger and hence he would be liable for battery under the law. 
• The plaintiff in this case sought action against an unlawful and aggressive touching. 
• The matter was before the Nisi Prius Court. 

Issue Involved  

• Whether there should be an element of aggression or anger in order to constitute the offence of battery? 

Observations 

• The Court in this case held that for an act to constitute a tort of battery the touching should be intentional. 
• Thus, intentional touching of another in a violent manner does constitute a tort of battery. 
• However, where there is least touching without any intent it does not amount to battery. 
• The Court held that there is a difference between a touch that is without intention and an aggressive intentional touch. 
• While the former is not a tort, the latter is a tort. 
• Justice Holt in this case held that: 
  • “ the least touching of another in anger is a battery. If two or more meet in a narrow passage, and without any violence or design of harm, the one touches the other gently, it is no battery. If any of them use violence against the other, to force his way in a rude inordinate manner, it is a battery; or any struggle about the passage, to that degree as may do hurt, is a battery.” 

Conclusion 

• This case is very important as it laid down that an innocent touching would not amount to assault, rather an intentional touching would amount to battery.  
• The Court held that only when touching is coupled with anger can it be considered battery.