PARTICULARS. The defendant's bank had on the 2nd February, 1902, advanced to J. H. in response to a request contained in a letter from J. H. to the defendant dated the 26th January, 1902, the sum of 1,000l. to assist J. H. in his business and in carrying out the contracts referred to in the said letter. On the 31st May, 1902, J. H. called upon the defendant and verbally inquired of the defendant whether he considered the plaintiff would be a suitable man to act as manager of his business. It was in answer to the said inquiry that the said words were published. No. 43. Qualified Privilege-Master and Servant. The defendant is head gardener to one Sir John M., of The plaintiff and others at the time mentioned in the Statement of Claim were employed as labourers by Sir John M., and the defendant was verbally requested by him on the 10th day of March, 1904, to see that the said labourers did their work in a proper and diligent manner. On the 31st day of March, 1904, Sir John M. verbally inquired of the defendant whether the said labourers were sober and honest and attentive to their work. It thereupon became and was the duty of the defendant to state such facts as were within his knowledge to Sir John M. Such statements are the alleged slanders; but they were made bona fide in the discharge of the said duty, and in answer to the said inquiry, and in the honest belief that the facts so stated were true, and without any malice towards the plaintiff. The occasion was therefore privileged. No. 44. Qualified Privilege-Communication Volunteered-Confidential Relation-Common Interest. The said words were published by the defendant on a privileged occasion bonâ fide and without malice. PARTICULARS. The defendant is the eldest son of the Mrs. Hawkins mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim. She is a widow. On the 4th day of June, 1903, Mrs. Hawkins told the defendant confidentially that she was about to marry the plaintiff. Thereupon the defendant spoke the said words to the said Mrs. Hawkins confidentially and in the honest desire to protect her interests and his own. The defendant at the time bonâ fide believed in the truth of what he said. This is the only publication by the defendant of the said words. (Todd v. Hawkins, 8 C. & P. 88; 2 Moo. & Rob. 20.) PARTICULARS UNDER A PLEA OF QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE. No. 45. Communication published in Self-defence. "The plaintiff in May, 1896, published and caused to be published -,' which was This a pamphlet entitled 'The Case of Salem Chapel, sold by all the booksellers in the said town of pamphlet contained serious charges against the defendant, both personally and as secretary and one of the deacons of the said chapel. The defendant published the words set out in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim in reply to the said pamphlet published by the plaintiff, and bona fide for the purpose of vindicating his character against the plaintiff's attack, and in order to prevent the plaintiff's said charges from operating to his prejudice, and in reasonable and necessary self-defence, and without any malice towards the plaintiff." No. 46. Common Interest-Church Members. The words set out in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim were part of a requisition summoning a meeting of the members of the English Baptist Church at which was signed by 122 of such members, and addressed to the deacons of such chapel. The defendant published the said requisition solely to members of the said church, who had a common interest with him in all the matters therein referred to. No. 47. Offer of Reward for Discovery of Offender. DEFENCE TO CLAIM NO. 3. The defendant published the placard referred to in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim solely for the purpose of endeavouring to discover the person who committed the assault referred to therein, and with the bona fide object and intention of bringing such person to justice and of prosecuting him to conviction. No. 48. Complaint to Persons in Authority. The plaintiff and defendant are both members of the ". Poultry Club," and were competitors at the Annual Show of the club which was held on the 12th October, 1895. During the show exhibitors named A. B., C. D., and E. F. verbally complained to the defendant of the plaintiff's conduct as such competitor that [here particulars of the complaints must be set out]. Thereupon the defendant drew up a written protest against the plaintiff being allowed to compete, and on the same day lodged the same with the committee whose duty it was by the rules of the club to investigate such a complaint. This protest is the alleged libel. It was written by the defendant, without any malice towards the plaintiff, with the sole object of ensuring a fair competition at the show, and in the honest belief that every statement therein contained was true. It was a communication made bonâ fide on a matter in which the defendant had an interest, and was published only to the said committee, who had a corresponding interest and duty in that behalf. PRIVILEGED REPORT. Report of a Judgment published as a Pamphlet. MACDOUGALL V. KNIGHT & SON, 17 Q. B. D. 636; 55 L. J. Q. B. 464 ; 34 W. R. 727; 55 L. T. 274. "1. The defendants admit that they published of the plaintiff a pamphlet which is a verbatim report of the judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice North, given on the 30th day of June, 1884, in the action of MacDougall v. Knight & Son, and which really gives all the information necessary to be known by anyone feeling an interest in the matter. But the defendants deny that they did so maliciously, or that they distributed the said pamphlet broadcast in the city of Bath, or the counties of Somerset and Gloucester, or elsewhere, or at all. "2. The said pamphlet contained the words set out in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim. The said words were in fact spoken by the Honourable Mr. Justice North in delivering judgment in the said action; but the defendants do not admit that he or they published the said words with the meanings alleged in the said paragraph. "3. The defendants are auctioneers and upholsterers carrying on business at Bath, and having a large number of customers resident in Bath and the neighbourhood. The plaintiff brought the said action against the defendants in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice charging the defendants with breach of contract, misrepresentation, and breach of faith. The said action was assigned for trial to the Honourable Mr. Justice North, who after a trial which lasted five days gave judgment in favour of the defendants. The said pamphlet is a fair, accurate, and honest report of the said judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice North, and was published by the defendants bona fide and with the honest intention of making known the true facts of the case, and in order to protect their reputation and their said business, and in reasonable selfdefence, and without any malice towards the plaintiff.” No. 50. Report privileged by virtue of Section 4 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888. The words set out in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim were published in the defendant's said newspaper on the date alleged and formed part of a fair and accurate report of the proceedings of a public meeting (or, of a meeting of the town council of the borough of S- ——, in the county of L- -), which was held at the Guildhall, S1895. The matter published was of public concern, and its publication was for the public benefit. on the day of No. 51. DEFENCE TO CLAIM No. 20. Slander of Title to Goods. 1. The defendant admits that the plaintiff caused the goods referred to in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim to be advertised for sale. 2. Of the goods so advertised for sale those numbered 19 to 28, both inclusive, in the plaintiff's particulars were the property of the defendant, and not of the plaintiff, but had been unlawfully seized and carried away by the plaintiff on the day of and the same were in the plaintiff's possession at the date of the said advertisement. 3. The defendant admits that he caused to be printed and published the "Notice" set out in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim, but denies that he did so falsely or maliciously. He published the said words in the honest belief that the plaintiff was seeking to sell the defendant's said goods and for the purpose of warning all persons from purchasing the said goods of the defendant, and in the bona fide belief that such warning was necessary for the protection of the defendant's own property, and without any malice towards the plaintiff. (See Carr v. Duckett, 5 H. & N. 783; 29 L. J. Ex. 468.) No. 52. Defence of Previous Action-Res Judicata. The plaintiff on the 13th March, 1892, sued the defendant, in an action of which the short title is "1892.-R.-No. 645" in the King's Bench Division of this Honourable Court, for the same cause of action as is alleged in the Statement of Claim herein; and in that action the plaintiff on the 15th July, 1892, recovered judgment against the defendant for £, and his costs; which judgment still remains in force. A plea that in a former action judgment was given against the plaintiff, is really a plea in estoppel. Commence as above: And in that action it was adjudged that the plaintiff should recover nothing against the defendant, and that the defendant should recover against the plaintiff £- for his costs of defence. The said judgment was signed on the day of, 1893, and still remains in force. [The proceedings are entered on roll, ] Wherefore the defendant says that the plaintiff is No. |