I just came across this line in a 1616 English torts case and figured I'd share it with you guys:
"If men tilt or turney in the presence of the King, or if two masters of defence playing their prizes kill one another, than this shall be no felony... because felony must be done animo felonico: yet in trespass, which tends only to give damages according to hurt or loss, it is not so; and therefore... [they] shall be answerable in trespass." Weaver v. Ward, 80 Eng. Rep. 284 (K.B. 1616).
In other words, one master would be liable for injuring or killing the other, and he would have to pay damages accordingly. If only all the cases in law school were this interesting (plenty of Latin in the full opinion, too). Anyway, back to the grind...

