case fit against veal if after recover damage in a action of assault battery  and wound the plaintiff be put to great expense in consequence of the injury  he receive yet he can bring a second action to recover further compensation  for the consequential damage he sustain for it shall be intend that the jury  consider all possible consequence on the trial of the first action S c salk S  c ld ray S c holt it be a special action of trespass in which the plaintiff  declare of a battery and wound of he at such a time for which he bring  trespass and recover damage for the beat and wound but that since that time by  reason of the wound he be fain to be trepan and have a bone take out of his  skull so that be thereby become maim and the former recovery be plead in bar  the question be if this action do now lie sir b shower urge that it do for  that nothing be recover for the maim before for it be not know or in be at the  time of the former recovery and the question be whether a action will not lie  for a consequential damage that happen to one from the wrong of another  subsequent to a recovery for the original wrong and sure it be modern report  hard it shall not for the wrong do by the stranger and the damage arise  thereby to I be the ground of the action and if a man do in time subsequent  stiff by the wrongful act of a stranger he ought to have remedy for it and we  be here sufferer by this battery in a new and high degree and this since the  recovery therefore we have receive no satisfaction for it because the jury can  not have it under their consideration be not then discover if this one modern  report er p act have be to the damage of two both of they shall recover  reparation with respect to their several damage though it be but one entire  act ergo if one act of I will prejudice another twice or in several degree  there ought to be several reparation more especial when one of the species or  degree of the damage be not know till after a recovery for the other and after  recovery for this trespass if the plaintiff have die within the year the  defendant will be punishable by indictment at suit of the king or on appeal at  suit of his wife or heir and he say if a enter into my ground and break down  my wall which keep out the sea and I bring trespass and recover damage and I  rebuild my wall but by reason of the newness thereof it be break down by a new  storm which the old wall will have resist shall I not recover new damage for  that loss curian this be a new case and none to be find that we know like it  for every man that recover damage it be suppose he have receive accord to the  damage that he have receive if the plaintiff surgeon have come at the last  trial and show that the plaintiff be not cure the jury will have consider that  matter and then be his time to consider of the heinousness of the battery and  to give evidence of it and in this case the get of the action be the injury or  first battery and the wound and maim be but aggravation of that injury but in  some case the damage be the ground of the action as where a master bring  action for beat his servant whereby he lose his service and it shall be intend  here that the jury give entire satisfaction for the battery and as to the case  put of the seabank the plaintiff shall recover damage for the overflow of his  land and to rebuild his wall and the danger of the new wall if there be any  thing in that too may be consider but this must be all at once and though  there be nothing of maim in the first declaration yet a recovery in trespass  and battery be a good bar modern report in maim   a in criminal matter one may  be twice punish for the same offence for if indictment be for assault and  battery and the party be convict and fine yet the plaintiff may have trespass  and recover damage against he and if afterward within the year the party die  the other may be ganged for the murder but per holt chief justice if a man be  dangerous ill of a battery and be indict for it the indictment for the battery  ought not to be try till after the year and if a will b and he thereof die  within the year through the unskilfulness of surgeon yet it be felony in a and  if a bring a action for word actionable in themselves and recover damage and  afterward by reason of the word she lose a husband yet no action will lie  afterward for the special damage and so if the word be actionable for the  special damage which party have suffer by reason of they and for and that  damage be recover and after the party have another special damage and they all  hold that this be not like the case put where a tort be do to two by one act  for there a recovery by one be not for the tort do to the other and upon  declaration for assault battery and wound one may give maim in evidence and  recover damage for it and therefore a recovery in such a action be a good bar  to a action for maim and this be not like the case of a nuisance in erect a  penthouse whereby the rain fall upon my house or garden or stop my light  wherein I shall recover damage for every new hurt in infinitum for first the  battery be a transitory act and the nuisance be a continue one as long as it  last therefore damage can be recover for it at once second every due rain that  fall or every light that be stop be a new nuisance but every new ill  consequence of the battery be not any new wrong of the defendant et per totan  curium judgement be give for the defendant