Here, the court states that: "We therefore proceed to an immediate consideration of intent and its place in the law of battery." In other words, the court indicates that it is going to examine the legal definition of the concept of INTENT with respect to the tort of "battery."
THIS is the QUESTION that this case addresses, and the court's ultimate response to this Question will become the basis for the actual legal "HOLDING" of this case. It is ONLY THEN, at this point, that the real ISSUE addressed in this case be articulated. And, it is THIS ISSUE that you will put into your case brief as the "issue" for the Garratt case; however, you can only do this AFTER you have first determined the specific "HOLDING" of the case.
At this point in your reading and analysis of the "Garratt" case and in preparing your brief of this case, you might want to back and review Professor Martin's response to CA Q 13 if you still are having trouble with trying to determine the specific "Issue" that you should include within your brief of the Garratt case, as well as HOW you should go about doing that.