sum of forty shillings by way of amends for the injury sustained by the plaintiff through the publication of the said libel, and says that the said sum is enough to satisfy the plaintiff's claim in this action.

[As to dangers attending the use of this plea, see ante, p. 595.]

No. 61.

REPLY TO DEFENCE No. 36.

1. The plaintiff joins issue upon the 1st and 3rd paragraphs of the Defence.

2. The plaintiff admits that he was convicted of felony as alleged in paragraph 2 of the Defence, but does not admit that he in fact committed the said felony. The Court by which the plaintiff was so convicted sentenced the plaintiff as his punishment for the said felony to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for twelve calendar months. The plaintiff, as the defendants well knew, duly endured the said punishment, and was released from the said imprisonment as having served his sentence on the day of and thereby became, and is, in the same situation as if a pardon under the Great Seal had been granted to him for the said felony.

No. 62.

REPLY TO DEFENCE No. 50.

1. The plaintiff joins issue with the defendant on his Defence. 2. The plaintiff by a letter dated May 22nd, 1895, requested the defendant to insert in the newspaper in which the words complained of appeared, a reasonable letter or statement by way of contradiction. or explanation. But the defendant refused (or, neglected) to insert the same.

No. 63.
Particulars

Delivered pursuant to Order XXXVI. r. 37.

TAKE NOTICE, that at the trial of this action the defendant intends. to give the following matters in evidence with a view to mitigation of damages :

1. On August 10th, 1895, before the publication of the letter set out in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff wrote and caused to be printed and published in the

County Gazette an anonymous letter with regard to the matters mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim, in which he commended his own conduct, and then referred to the defendant in the following words: [Set out so much of the anonymous letter as attacked the defendant.]

2. It was in reply to the attack made on the defendant by this anonymous letter that the defendant spoke [or wrote] the words set out in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim.

3. Thereupon the plaintiff on August 24th, 1895, wrote and caused to be printed and published in the County Gazette the libellous letter set out in paragraph 5 of the defendant's Counterclaim. This letter the defendant was entitled, and indeed compelled, to answer. And in reply thereto, he wrote the words set out in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim which the plaintiff alleges to be a libel upon him.

Dated the

To the plaintiff,

day of

and Messrs. C. & D.,

his solicitors or agents.

[N.B.-There is nothing to prevent such particulars being printed on the same piece of paper as the Defence, if the defendant wishes it. In that case, they should not be printed as part of the pleading, but should follow the signature of counsel. If, however, the Defence contains pleas in bar to the whole action, it is better to deliver such particulars separately and subsequently.]

No. 64.
INTERROGATORIES.

As to Publication.

Gazette of the

Is it not the fact that in the issue of the 6th July, 1878, an article appeared containing the words set out in paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim, or some and which of them or other words to the same effect?

Were not you, the defendant William Burnside, upon and before the said 6th day of July, 1878, or some other and what date,

the proprietor

and

or

publisher, either alone or jointly with some

other and what person or persons, of the said newspaper?

(Lefroy v. Burnside, (1879) 4 L. R. Ir. 340; 41 L. T. 199; 14 Cox, C. C. 260; ante, p. 617.)

Did you write or cause to be written the letter to the editor dated 23rd November, 1881, published in the Hereford Times of 26th November, 1881, under the heading of "The distraint for rent case at Leominster," and signed by your name T. A. Colt?

Do not the words in the said letter [Here set out the words] refer to the plaintiff ?

By your allegation in that letter that one of the holders of the bill of sale mentioned in your letter had affirmed something since in a Court of law that he did not possess a 51. note, did you not intend to refer to the plaintiff?

Did you, on or about the 16th of February, 1885, or at some other and what date, write and send or cause to be sent to Colonel Pryse, of, &c., a letter, of which a copy is annexed hereto, marked A., of which the original will, if you require it, be shown to you before swearing your affidavit in answer to these interrogatories on your giving reasonable notice in that behalf ?*

Did you, on or about the 26th of January, 1885, or at some other and what date, write and send or cause to be sent a letter, of which a copy is annexed, marked B. [the letter containing the alleged libel], of which the original will, if you require it, be shown to you before swearing your affidavit in answer to these interrogatories on your giving reasonable notice in that behalf?

(Jones v. Richards, (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 439.)

of

Did you, on or about the speak the following words of the plaintiff [Here insert words] or words to that effect? Were the said words spoken in the presence of [Here insert names from Particulars in Statement of Claim] or some and which of them?

(Dalgleish v. Lowther, (1899) 2 Q. B. 590.)

* The document referred to in this interrogatory was not the libel sued on but a document on which the plaintiff intended to rely as proof that the libel was in the defendant's handwriting.

O.L.S.

3 B

As to Conscious Publication.

[Book in Library of British Museum.]

How did the trustees become possessed of the said book? Was it not bought or otherwise and how acquired by them or with their authority and when and from whom?

Were any and what steps taken by the trustees or the librarian or any other and what servant of theirs to ascertain the character of the said book before it was so bought or acquired, or after it was so bought and acquired, or when first?

What care did the defendants take, as alleged by them in their Defence, with reference to the said book and on what occasions to ascertain its contents and whether it contained libellous matter or to prevent its being read?

(Martin v. Trustees of the British Museum, (1893) 10 Times L. R. 215.)

As to Gross Negligence under Lord Campbell's Act where a Newspaper had Published a Letter signed "A Ratepayer."

When and from and through whom and how did you receive the letter set out in the Statement of Claim?

Are there any and what circumstances known to you or any and which of your servants or agents which led you to suspect or from which it might be inferred who was the writer or sender of the said letter?

Did you ever receive any and what request to publish the said letter? If yea, when and from whom was such request received? If verbal, give the substance thereof, and if in writing identify the document.

Had you or any and which of your servants or agents any and what means of knowing or ascertaining when and by whom the said letter was written or sent to you?

Did you before you published the said letter make any, and what, inquiries as to whether the writer thereof was a ratepayer of St. Saviour's parish, or as to who the writer was? If yea, when, and how, and of whom did you make it and what was the nature and result of each such inquiry?

Did you, before you published the said letter, take any and what precautions, or make any, and what, inquiries as to the truth of the statements contained in it, or make any, and what, inquiry at all with respect to the said letter? Have you ever made any such, and

what, inquiries, and when? And what was the result of each such inquiry?

Was the letter received by you altered in any and what respects before insertion in The Gazette?

As to malice.

[Interrogatory by defendant.]

Do you intend to set up that the defendants have been actuated by malice? and if so state what are the facts and circumstances on which you rely as showing actual malice.

(Cooper v. Blackmore, (1886) 2 Times L. R. 746.)

[Interrogatories by plaintiff.]

What information, if any, had you that induced you to believe that the said words were true, or what steps, if any, had you taken before speaking the words to ascertain whether they were true or not? (Elliott v. Garrett, (1902) 1 K. B. 870.)

As to Damages.

What number of copies of The Gazette for the 26th March, and for the 2nd of April, were printed and published respectively? How many copies of the issue of the 26th of March circulated in St. Saviour's parish? Was not that a larger number than usual? (See ante, p. 610.)

At what date was the pamphlet entitled "Parnellism and Crime" first issued in that form as a separate publication? At what date (if any) was the public circulation of the said pamphlet stopped ? How many editions of the said pamphlet and how many copies of each such edition were issued and circulated by sale or otherwise between the said dates?

(Parnell v. Walter, (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 441.)

[For Objections to answer particular interrogatories, see ante, pp. 614, 618.]

No. 65.

Notice of Motion on Appeal.

the

TAKE NOTICE, that this honourable Court will be moved on

day of

1895, or so soon thereafter as counsel can