## Facts

- Ray Stull was part-owner and manager of a waterfront saloon and poolroom known as “Trader Dan’s.”
- Stull considered the complaining witness (Matthew) a recurring troublemaker and had previously directed him to leave the premises.
- During a disturbance in the poolroom, Stull saw Matthew arguing with another patron and instructed Matthew to leave.
- When Matthew refused, Stull took Matthew by the arm and escorted him to the door and outside.
- Matthew alleged Stull also kicked him, but the trial court discredited that allegation.
- The Municipal Court rejected aggravated assault and battery (14 V.I.C. § 297) but convicted Stull of simple assault and battery (14 V.I.C. § 299) based on the arm-grabbing and ejection, imposing a suspended $50 fine.
- Stull appealed to the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Appellate Division.

## Issues

1. Whether a proprietor who revokes a patron’s permission to remain may use reasonable physical force to remove the patron without committing simple assault and battery.
2. Whether taking a patron by the arm and escorting him out, absent credible proof of excessive force, is privileged conduct rather than criminal battery.

## Decision

- The appellate court vacated the conviction and remanded with instructions to enter a verdict of not guilty.
- As manager and part-owner, Stull had authority to revoke Matthew’s permission to remain and demand that he leave when disorderly.
- After Matthew refused to depart, Stull was permitted to use reasonable force to eject him.
- On the credited facts (no kicking; only taking the arm and escorting outside), the force used was reasonable and did not constitute simple assault and battery.

## Legal Principles

- A business proprietor or person in charge of premises may revoke a patron’s license to remain and require the patron to leave.
- If the patron refuses after being given an opportunity to depart, the proprietor may use reasonable force, and no more than reasonably necessary, to remove the patron.
- Physical contact that is reasonable and solely incident to a lawful ejection is privileged and does not amount to criminal assault and battery; excessive or punitive force may remove the privilege.

## Conclusion

The court held that a proprietor’s minimal, reasonable physical restraint used to escort a disorderly patron out after revoking permission to remain is justified and cannot support a conviction for simple assault and battery where the factfinder rejects allegations of additional, excessive force.


Gov’t of the V.I. v. Stull, 280 F. Supp. 460 (D.V.I. 1968)