Saverland v Newton

Last updated

Saverland v. Newton (1837) is a court case in which a British man named Thomas Saverland brought an action against Miss Caroline Newton, who had bitten off the left half of his nose after he attempted to kiss her without consent. [1] The judge ruled against him, stating that "When a man kisses a woman against her will, she is fully entitled to bite his nose off, if she so pleases." [2] [3] The existence of this case or findings is not available in known court documents. Its recounting and/or existence is based upon newspaper accounts.

Contents

Contemporary newspaper account

The case as covered in the Bell's New Weekly Messenger, April 30, 1837, p. 6-7.

A DEARLY-BOUGHT KISS

Caroline Newton was indicted for assaulting Thomoas Saverland and biting off his nose. The complainant, whose face bore incontestible evidence of the severe injury inflicted, the fleshy part of the left nostril being completely gone, stated that on the day after Christmas Day he was in a tap-room where were defendant and her sister. The sister laughingly observed that she had left her young man down at Birmingham, and had promised him no man should kiss her while absent. Complainant regarded this observation as a challenge, especially it being holiday time, and caught hold of her and kissed her. She took it in good part as joke, but defendant became angry, and desired she might have as little of that kind of fun as he pleased. Complainant told her if she was angry he would kiss her also and tried to do it. A scuffle ensued, and they both fell to the ground. After they got up complainant went and stood by the fire, and the defendant followed and struck at him. He again closed with her and tried to kiss her, and in the scuffle he was heard to cry out, She has got my nose in her mouth.” When they parted he was bleeding profusely from the nose, and a portion of it, which defendant had bitten off, she was seen to spit out of her mouth upon the ground. The defendant, a fat, middle-aged woman, treated the matter with great levity, and said he had no business to kiss her sister, or attempt to kiss her, in a public house; they were not such kind of people.

If she wanted to be kissed, she had a husband to kiss her, and he was a much handsomer man than defendant ever was, even before he lost his nose. The Chairman told the jury that it mattered little which way their verdict went. If they found her guilty the court would not fine her more than 1s., as the prosecutor had brought the punishment on himself. The jury, without hesitation, acquitted her. The Chairman told the prosecutor he was sorry for the loss of his nose, but if he would play with cats, he must expect to get scratched. Turning to the jury, the Chairman afterwards said, "Gentlemen, my opinion is that if a man attempts to kiss a woman against her will, she has a right to bite his nose off if she has a fancy for so doing."-"And eat it too," added a learned gentleman at the bar. The case caused much laughter to all except the poor complainant.

Precedents

The case was a forerunner of sexual harassment cases to come and asserted that a woman was permitted to defend her virtue, by force if necessary. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law. In civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. Variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Giuseppe Marc'Antonio Baretti</span> Italian-born English literary critic and author

Giuseppe Marc'Antonio Baretti was an Italian literary critic, poet, writer, translator, linguist and author of two influential language-translation dictionaries. During his years in England he was often known as Joseph Baretti. Baretti's life was marked by controversies, to the point that he had to leave Italy, for England, where he remained for the rest of his life.

Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict regardless of whether they believe a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scottsboro Boys</span> Racism based miscarriage of justice

The Scottsboro Boys were nine African American teenage males accused in Alabama of raping two white women in 1931. The landmark set of legal cases from this incident dealt with racism and the right to a fair trial. The cases included a lynch mob before the suspects had been indicted, all-white juries, rushed trials, and disruptive mobs. It is commonly cited as an example of a legal injustice in the United States legal system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hall–Mills murder case</span> American murder case

The Hall–Mills murder case involved Edward Wheeler Hall, an Episcopal priest, and Eleanor Mills, a member of his choir with whom he was having an affair, both of whom were murdered on September 14, 1922, in Somerset, New Jersey, United States. Hall's wife and her brothers were accused of committing the murders, but were acquitted in a 1926 trial. In the history of journalism, the case is largely remembered for the vast extent of newspaper coverage it received nationwide; it has been regarded as an example of a media circus. It would take the Lindbergh kidnapping trial in the 1930s to eclipse the high profile of the Hall-Mills case.

In criminal law, consent may be used as an excuse and prevent the defendant from incurring liability for what was done.

Self-defence is a defence permitting reasonable force to be used to defend one's self or another. This defence arises both from common law and the Criminal Law Act 1967. Self-defence is a justification defence rather than an excuse.

In English law, provocation was a mitigatory defence to murder which had taken many guises over generations many of which had been strongly disapproved and modified. In closing decades, in widely upheld form, it amounted to proving a reasonable total loss of control as a response to another's objectively provocative conduct sufficient to convert what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter. It only applied to murder. It was abolished on 4 October 2010 by section 56(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but thereby replaced by the superseding—and more precisely worded—loss of control.

A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence about the past sexual activity of a complaint in a sexual assault trial, or that limits cross-examination of complainants about their past sexual behaviour in sexual assault cases. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim.

<i>Ashford v Thornton</i> English law case upholding trial by battle

Ashford v Thornton (1818) 106 ER 149 is an English criminal case in the Court of King's Bench which upheld the right of the defendant to trial by battle on a private appeal from an acquittal for murder.

Theodore "Ted" Roosevelt Patrick, Jr. is an American deprogrammer and author. He is considered to be the "father of deprogramming."

Arthur Allan Thomas is a New Zealand man who was granted a Royal Pardon and compensation after being wrongfully convicted of the murders of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe in June 1970. Thomas was married and farming a property in the Pukekawa district, south of Auckland before the case. Following the revelation that the crucial evidence against him had been faked, Thomas was pardoned in 1979 and awarded NZ$950,000 in compensation for his 9 years in prison and loss of earnings.

Christopher Harder is a lawyer based in Auckland, New Zealand.

<i>R v W (D)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v W (D), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on assessing guilt based on the credibility of witnesses in a criminal trial. More specifically, W.D. examines sexual assault cases and burdens of proof in evidence law.

Rolando Cruz is an American man known for having been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, along with co-defendant Alejandro Hernandez, for the 1983 kidnapping, rape, and murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico in DuPage County, Illinois. The police had no substantive physical evidence linking the two men to the crime. Their first trial was jointly in 1987, and their statements were used against each other and a third defendant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hammersmith Ghost murder case</span> 1804 English legal case

The Hammersmith Ghost murder case of 1804 set a legal precedent in the UK regarding self-defence: that someone could be held liable for their actions even if they were the consequence of a mistaken belief.

<i>DPP v Morgan</i>

DPP v Morgan[1975] UKHL 3 was a decision of the House of Lords which decided that an honest belief by a man that a woman with whom he was engaged with sexual intercourse was consenting was a defence to rape, irrespective of whether that belief was based on reasonable grounds. This case was superseded by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which came into force on 1 May 2004.

<i>R v Evans and McDonald</i>

R v Evans and McDonald was the prosecution of two footballers, Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald, who were accused of the rape of a woman. On 20 April 2012, Evans was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment. McDonald was acquitted. Several people were later fined after naming the woman on Twitter and other social media websites.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Queenstown suppressed indecency case</span> Sexual assault case by a New Zealand celebrity, 2011–2014

The Queenstown suppressed indecency case was a police investigation and court case in New Zealand from 2011 to 2014 in which a celebrity was accused of, pleaded guilty to and was convicted of "performing an indecent act intended to insult or offend" against a woman in Queenstown and later discharged without conviction and given permanent name suppression. The case fuelled discussion and controversy in New Zealand over the use by courts of suppression orders to protect the identity of perpetrators of higher social status.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Disappearance of Michele Anne Harris</span> Disappearance of an American woman on September 11, 2001

On the night of September 11, 2001, Michele Anne Harris of Spencer, New York, United States, left the restaurant where she worked as a waitress in nearby Waverly after finishing her shift, and shared drinks with two coworkers in the parking lot. She then went to see a boyfriend in Smithboro and left shortly after 11 p.m. This was the last time anyone is known to have seen her. The next morning, her car was found on the road near the home she shared with her children and estranged husband, Cal. He was later tried for her murder four times and convicted twice before being acquitted.

References

  1. "The History of the Kiss". New York Times. 26 July 1902. p. BR16. Retrieved 10 July 2009. There is a case cited in the English courts, as far back as 1837, when Thomas Saverland brought an action against Miss Caroline Newton. Saverland tried to kiss Caroline, 'by way of a joke,' and Caroline bit off a piece of his nose. The defendant was acquitted, and the Judge laid down the law that, 'when a man kisses a woman against her will, she is fully entitled to bite off his nose, if she so pleases,' 'and eat it up, if she has a fancy that way,' added a jocular barrister half aloud.
  2. "MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. The Law of Kissing". The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW : 1803-1842). 9 September 1837. p. 4. Retrieved 14 October 2016.
  3. Bell's New Weekly Messenger . London. 30 April 1837. p. 11.{{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. Koerth-Baker, Maggie (20 May 2009). "Ten important kisses in history". CNN. Retrieved 10 July 2009. 3. The kiss that proved no means no