#### Maggie M. Hidden, Appellee, v. William K. Baker, Jr., Appellant.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Moultrie county; the Hon. William G. Cochean, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1914.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 16, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Maggie M. Hidden against William K. Baker, Jr., to recover damages for injuries suffered by her as a result óf a conspiracy entered into by the defendant with others to commit a criminal assault upon plaintiff. The defendant was sued alone. The plea was the general issue. Plaintiff had verdict and *562judgment for one thousand dollars. To reverse the judgment, defendant appeals.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Assault and battery, § 22 * —when damages for wilful and. wanton assault not excessive. In an action to recover damages for an assault on a married woman at her home in the nighttime, where such assault was wilful and wanton and the result of a conspiracy, a judgment for one thousand dollars held not excessive.

2. Damases, § 96*—when exemplary damages recoverable without proof of actual damages. Where an assault is wilful and wanton it is not necessary to prove actual damages in order to recover exemplary damages.

The errors assigned by defendant were the rulings of the court as to admission and rejection of evidence, the giving and refusing of instructions and that the damages were excessive.

The evidence showed that defendant and others after drinking intoxicating liquors went to the home of plaintiff and her husband after midnight and called for plaintiff’s husband to come out to the road where defendant’s companions were; that plaintiff’s husband went out to where they were and while he was talking to them the defendant entered plaintiff’s bedroom and made an assault upon plaintiff.

James W. and Edward C. Craig and Jack & Whitfield, for appellant.

E. J. Miller, for appellee.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number»

Mr. Justice Scholfield

delivered the opinion of the court.