## Facts

- Beach and Hancock engaged in an angry altercation.
- Hancock went into a nearby office, returned with a gun, and aimed it at Beach in an excited and threatening manner while Beach stood three or four rods away.
- Evidence indicated Hancock snapped the gun twice at Beach.
- Beach did not know whether the gun was loaded; the gun was in fact unloaded.
- The trial court instructed that pointing the gun in these circumstances constituted an assault even if unloaded, and that snapping was not necessary to establish assault.
- The trial court also instructed that, when assessing damages for breaches of the peace, the jury could consider the public effect of awarding light or trivial damages.

## Issues

1. Whether aiming an unloaded gun at another in a threatening manner constitutes an assault when the target reasonably believes it may be loaded.
2. Whether the jury may be instructed, in assessing damages for assault as a breach of the peace, to consider the public consequences of awarding only trivial damages.

## Decision

- The court affirmed judgment on the verdict for Beach.
- The court held that Hancock committed an assault by aiming (and snapping) the gun under circumstances that reasonably caused Beach to fear imminent harm, despite the gun being unloaded.
- The court held it was proper to instruct the jury that it could consider the public consequences of trivial damages in actions involving breaches of the peace.

## Legal Principles

- Assault may be established by conduct creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact when the defendant has an apparent present ability to inflict harm as perceived by a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position.
- Actual ability to inflict harm at the moment (such as a gun being loaded) is not required if the defendant’s threatening conduct would reasonably be understood as capable of immediate injury.
- Intent for assault may be inferred from circumstances showing a threatening act directed at the plaintiff during a hostile encounter.
- In setting damages for assaults and similar breaches of the peace, a jury may consider deterrence and the risk that trivial damages would encourage disregard of law and public order.

## Conclusion

The court upheld liability for assault based on the plaintiff’s reasonable fear arising from the defendant’s threatening display of an apparently operable gun, and approved a damages instruction permitting the jury to consider deterrent and public-order effects when awarding damages for breaches of the peace.


Beach v. Hancock, 27 N.H. 223 (N.H. 1853)