## Facts

- Read, a paper-stainer, rented business premises in London and fell sixteen weeks behind on rent.
- The landlord’s agent distrained and seized Read’s trade fixtures; the goods were later sold (at Read’s request and through the agent) to Coker.
- Read and Coker agreed the business would continue for their mutual benefit, with Coker paying rent and outgoings and Read receiving a weekly sum.
- Coker later dismissed Read and treated the arrangement as ended.
- Read returned to the premises and refused to leave when ordered.
- Coker assembled several workmen who surrounded Read, rolled up their sleeves and aprons, and threatened to “break his neck” if he did not leave.
- Read, fearing violence, left the premises.

## Issues

1. Whether a conditional threat of violence (“if you do not leave, we will break your neck”), accompanied by menacing conduct and an apparent present ability to carry it out, is an actionable assault despite no physical contact.
2. Whether statutory “notice of action” protection for acts done “in pursuance” or “in the execution” of an Act requires the defendant to know of the statute or to act in strict compliance with it.

## Decision

- The court upheld the verdict for Read on assault and left undisturbed the award of nominal damages.
- The court held that surrounding Read with multiple men, coupled with threatening gestures and a conditional threat of immediate violence, constituted an assault because it created reasonable apprehension of imminent harm.
- On the statutory notice question, the court held that entitlement to notice protection does not require the defendant to be aware of the statute at the time, nor to have acted strictly within its terms.

## Legal Principles

- Assault occurs when a defendant intentionally causes another to reasonably apprehend the imminent application of unlawful force.
- Conditional threats can constitute assault when the condition is backed by conduct indicating immediate force will follow noncompliance.
- Words combined with menacing conduct (e.g., surrounding the claimant, preparing to fight) can supply the immediacy and credibility needed for reasonable apprehension.
- Statutory notice-of-action protections for acts done “in pursuance” or “in execution” of an Act may apply even if the actor was unaware of the statute or did not act with strict procedural exactness.

## Conclusion

The case holds that a demand backed by a conditional threat of immediate violence and menacing conduct is an actionable assault because it induces reasonable fear of imminent harm, and it also construes statutory notice protection broadly so it is not defeated by the actor’s lack of awareness of the statute or strict compliance.


Read v. Coker, 13 C.B. 850 (C.P. 1853)