it is conceived, of the statement and arguments which have here been submitted, their conviction, "that on a system simple and sound in principle, defects and abuses have been engrafted, which have gone far to destroy its utility;" and they add that, "this has arisen in a great measure from an over anxiety to insure exact precision and certainty, and from the rigorous character of the rules introduced for that purpose."

They further stated as follows:-" These rules have been abused, and with certain arbitrary regulations and forms have caused the objections to special pleading, the justice of which we recognise." (a)

They speak of the "uncertainty and vagueness of the indebitatus counts," which "merely allege a debt without specifying the subject matter of the transaction;" a mode of declaring "no doubt inconsistent with the theory of pleading, and which would be insufficient to attain the desired objects, were it not that practically the same result is obtained by the plaintiff being compelled to deliver particulars." (b) They specifically refer to the count for money had and received, as "an arti

must be stated, that Sir J. Jervis had written probably the best work on the New Rules, and that the strong good sense of all the Commissioners was only equalled by their legal learning and their sincere love of justice.

(a) See the Commissioners' Report, 1851, p. 12.

(6) How far this is so may be seen from the numerous cases on the construction of particulars, or of pleadings with reference to

ficial mode of stating legal implications from the facts, in lieu of the facts themselves, and as departing from the purpose of pleading-the giving of information to the parties."

They go on to speak of the "undue length and prolixity of pleadings in many cases." (a)

particulars. Let it be remembered that the particulars form no part of the pleadings, and do not at all assist in that respect to enable the defendant to identify or distinguish the different demands. And, on the other hand, the particulars bring difficulties of their own.

(a) General Points.-The object of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the nature of the plaintiff's claim, and to limit the proof of the latter to the amount therein mentioned; but it forms no part of the record itself. It cannot, therefore, be used in aid of the declaration (Dempster v. Parnell, 3 Man. & G. 375; 4 Sco. N. R. 30; 1 Dowl. N. S., 168).

The same rule applies to proceedings in county or inferior courts, and the particulars there also cannot be used in aid of the declaration (Ib.).

Where particulars of demand give defendant credit for a bill of exchange indorsed by defendant to plaintiff, but also debit defendant to the amount of the bill for its dishonour, it is as if the particulars had not mentioned the bill at all (Green v. Smithies, 1 Ad. & E., N. S., 796).

Therefore, in such a case the defendant, in an action for goods sold and delivered, cannot show, under non assumpsit, that the plaintiff, after taking and presenting the bill, failed to give notice of dishonour (Ib.).

The rule Trin. T., 1 Vict., as to not pleading payments for which credit is given in the particulars, does not apply to such a case (Ib.).

Where a plaintiff gives credit in his particulars of demand for a sum paid by the defendant, such payment is put on the same footing as if there had been a plea of payment; but it cannot be taken as an admission as against the defendant, with respect to any of the items in the entire account (Goatley v. Herring, 12 Law J., N. S., 32-C. P.).

In Actions on Promissory Notes.- A declaration contained two

"The redundant and tautological modes of expression which disfigure pleadings, and the re

counts on two promissory notes for 501. each, and also a count on an account stated. The particulars of demand stated that the plaintiff sought to recover 50%., the amount of the note in the first count, and 507., the amount of the note in the second count, for the recovery whereof he would avail himself of the whole, or any part of the declaration. No evidence was given in respect of the promissory notes. Held that, under the above particulars, an admission by the defendant that he owed the plaintiff 1007. could not be given in evidence in support of the account stated (Roberts v. Elsworth, 1 Dowl., N. S., 456; 10 Mee. & W. 653; 12 Law J., N. S., 15-Exch.).

The particulars of demand, in an action by payee against the maker of a note were, "this action is brought to recover the sum of" &c., " due on the promissory note mentioned in the first count of the declaration; above are the particulars of the plaintiff's demand, for the recovery whereof she will avail herself of the whole or any part of the declaration." Semble, the plaintiff is precluded from going into evidence upon the account stated (Hedley v. Bainbridge, 2 Gale & D. 483).

In Actions of Trespass.-The court will not grant particulars in an action of trespass, on the mere affidavit of the defendant that he had read the declaration, and that, from the general and vague form thereof, he was unable to ascertain the grievance on which the plaintiff intended to rely; but some special ground must be shown as a reason for granting the rule (Horlock v. Lediard, 10 Mee. & W., 677; 2 Dowl.; N. S., 277; 12 Law J., N. S. 33-Exch.).

The plaintiff's particulars were for work done as an attorney between 1st March, 1841, and 20th February, 1842. No work had been done in that interval, but the plaintiff claimed 107. for procuring the defendant his bankrupt's certificate, dated 24th February, 1841. Held, at the trial, that the particulars were sufficiently precise to include the above claim (Young v. Fisher, 7 Jur. 69, C. P.).

The first count of a declaration in assumpsit alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendants as a carman, at wages

petition of the same thing in different ways, are in a great measure to be ascribed to the rigour with

after the rate of 1007. a year, and claimed damages for his discharge, without just cause during the year; there was also a count for work and labour. The particulars of demand stated that the plaintiff, besides seeking to recover damages, under the indebitatus count, 877., the balance of account for a quarter's work done by him for the defendants, commencing on the 30th June, and ending on the 30th September, 1842, after giving credit for 31. paid on account thereof. It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff was discharged on the 30th July, 1842, for misconduct which the jury found to be a sufficient cause for his dismissal; that he worked out that day, and that, on the next morning, the defendant sent for him, and he remained working there that day also, and then left. The jury found that the value of those two days' work was 40s., but that he was entitled to a month's wages, and he accordingly had a verdict for 10l. 68. 8d., allowing for the 37. which had been paid in advance. Held, that the plaintiff was not precluded by his particu lars from recovering this sum (Hercum v. Stericker, 10 Mee. & W. 553; 2 Dowl., N. S., 524; 12 Law J., N. S., 17 Exch.).

In an action for money had and received, money paid, and on account stated, the bill of particulars was as follows:-" This action is brought to recover the sum of 30007., being a sum claimed by the plaintiff for the amount of divers sums in cash paid, and the value of divers bills given by the plaintiff to the defendant at various times between the 1st November, 1839, and the 12th May, 1843, as and for the purchase-money of the paintings hereunder mentioned, the making of which payments and giving of which bills the defendant procured from plaintiff by false and fraudulent representations; and in respect of the plaintiff having discounted and paid the said bills." (This was followed by a list of paintings, with the price marked againt each.) "Above are the particulars of the plaintiff's demand in this action." Held, that these particulars gave sufficient information of the nature of the action and for what it was brought (Archbutt v. Pennell, 7 Jur. 510-Exch.).

Indebitatus assumpsit by the assignees of a bankrupt. The first four counts were for goods sold, money paid and had and re

which pleadings are construed; which has introduced verbosity and length, from a desire to omit

ceived, and on an account stated, laying the premises to the bankrupt; the fifth, and sixth, and seventh counts were for goods sold, money had and received, and on an account stated, laying the premises to the assignees. Pleas, first, except as to 3207., parcel, &c., and except as to 1407., parcel of the sums in the first, second, third, and fourth counts mentioned, a plea of mutual credit, which has been demurred to, and on argument decided for defendant as to 3201., parcel, &c., payment into court; taken out by plaintiff, who at trial proved only the 1407. Held, there was a right to recover it on the second set of counts (Russell v. Bell, 10 Mee. & W. 340).

Recovery of Wages.-A party working under a yearly contract of wages, payable quarterly, having been discharged for misconduct after the commencement of the quarter, agreed to finish his month's work: Held, that although he could not recover a quarter's wages, still he was entitled to a month's wages under the indebitatus counts, although the particulars of demand stated that he sought to recover under those counts for a quarter's work (Hercum v. Stericker, 10 Mee. & W. 563; 12 Law J., N. S., 17-Exch.).

Dismissal of Servant.—To an action against the defendants, proprietors of a cotton manufactory, for refusing to employ plaintiff as manager, pursuant to agreement, and discharging him from their service before the period mentioned in the agreement, the defendants pleaded, that the plaintiff so wrongfully, disobediently, and unskilfully conducted himself as such manager, that they, the defendants, suffered and sustained great loss, to wit, to the amount of 1000%. :-Held, that, in order to support such a plea, it is necessary to show not only disobedience, but such disobedience as occasioned a loss; and, there being no evidence of any loss, that the plea was not supported (Cussans v. Skinner, 11 Mee. & W. 161; 12 Law J., N. S., 347,-Exch.).

Where there has been disobedience, or an act of misconduct by a servant, known to the master at the time he discharges him, although the master does not mention that as the precise ground of discharge, he may afterwards, by showing that the fact existed, and