1. The said libel was written by the defendant, and published by

The plaintiff is unable at present to name anyone else to whom the said libel was published, but believes that the defendant kept a copy of the said libel and showed it to several other persons, and will deliver further particulars of their names as soon as they are ascertained.

2. The said slanders were uttered in the month of December, 1894, in the presence of G. R., of 20 High Street, in the said city, and his manager, W. K., at 20 High Street, aforesaid.

3. The following persons who used formerly to deal with the plaintiff ceased to do so in consequence of the defendant's conduct :M. N. of

The profits of the plaintiff's business have fallen £350 per annum. Dated this 29th day of March, 1895.

R. & F., solicitors for the plaintiff.

To the defendant, and Messrs. S. & P., his solicitors.

DEFENCES.

No. 27.

Defence in an Action of Libel.

1. The defendants never wrote or published any of the words set out in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim.*

2. The said words do not mean what is alleged in the said paragraph. They are incapable of the said alleged meaning or any other defamatory meaning.

3. The said words without the said alleged meaning are no libel. 4. The said words are part of a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding, viz., an action tried before Mr. Justice

on

March 14th, 1893, in which A. B. was plaintiff and C. D. defendant, and were published by the defendants bond fide for the information of the public, and in the usual course of their business as public journalists, and without any malice towards the plaintiff.

The words "falsely and maliciously" must not be traversed, unless pleas of justification and privilege follow; and even then such a traverse is superfluous. (Belt v. Lawes, 51 L. J. Q. B. 359.)

No. 28.

DEFENCE IN AN ACTION OF SLANDER.

Objection in point of Law.

1. The plaintiff did not at the date of the alleged publication carry on the said trade of a, as alleged in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim.

2. The defendant never spoke or published any of the words set out in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim.*

3. The defendant never spoke or published the said words of the plaintiff either in relation to his said trade, &c. [Follow the exact words of the Statement of Claim], or at all. The said words were not so understood by those who heard them uttered.

4. The said words do not mean what is alleged in the said paragraph. They are incapable of the said meaning or of any other defamatory or actionable meaning.

5. The defendant will object that the said words are not actionable without proof of special damage, and that none is alleged [or, that the special damage alleged is too remote, and is not sufficient in law to sustain the action] [or,t].

* The words "falsely and maliciously" must not be traversed, unless pleas of justification and privilege follow; and even then such a traverse is superfluous. (Belt v. Lawes, 51 L. J. Q. B. 359.)

+ See Precedent No. 2 in Section III. of Appendix E. of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

No. 29.
NO LIBEL.

Bona fide Comment on matters of Public Interest.

1. The defendant is the proprietor of a weekly newspaper called The Gazette, in which the words set out in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim appeared.

2. The said words do not mean what is alleged in that paragraph. They are incapable of any of such meanings, or of any defamatory meaning.

3. In so far as the said words consist of allegations of fact, they are true in substance and in fact; in so far as they consist of expressions of opinion they are fair comments made in good faith and without malice upon the said facts, which are matters of public interest.*

*This form of pleading was approved by the Divisional Court in Lord Penrhyn v. The Licensed Victuallers' Mirror, 7 Times L. R. 1 (Mathew and Grantham, JJ.)

No. 30.

The Same.

1. The defendant is, and at the time of the alleged grievances was, the proprietor of the Times newspaper.

2. On the evening of the 12th of February, 1867, the plaintiff had presented to the House of Lords a petition, making a serious charge against one of Her Majesty's judges; a debate ensued on the presentation of the said petition, and the said charge was utterly refuted.

3. The words set out in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim are a portion of the Parliamentary Report, published in the Times for the 13th of February, 1867. They are a fair and accurate report of the proceedings in the House of Lords on the preceding evening, and were published by the defendant bona fide, and without any malice towards the plaintiff.

4. The said petition, the charge it contained, and the said debate. were all matters of general public interest and concern.

5. The words set out in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim are a portion of a leading article which appeared in the Times for the 13th of February, 1867. The said article was a fair and impartial comment on the matters above referred to, and was published by the defendant bond fide for the benefit of the public and without any malice towards the plaintiff.

(See Wason v. Walter, L. R. 4 Q. B. 73; 8 B. & S. 671; 38 L. J. Q. B. 34; 17 W. R. 169; 19 L. T. 409.)

No. 31.

Leading Article in a Newspaper.

1. The defendants admit that on May 3rd, 1895, they printed and published the words set out in the Statement of Claim. Such words formed part of a leading article which appeared in the defendants' newspaper The Daily Post for that day. The defendants refer to the whole of such leading article, which was as follows:-[Here set out the whole article verbatim.]

2. The said words do not mean what the plaintiff in his Statement of Claim alleges them to mean. They are incapable of the said meanings, or of any other defamatory meaning.

3. The said words are no libel.

4. The plaintiff was tried on May 2nd, 1895, at the

O.L.S.

X X

Assizes, before Mr. Justice on a charge of manslaughter. A full report of the said trial appeared in the same issue of the defen. dants' paper as the words complained of. And the said article (including the said words) was published by the defendants in the ordinary course of their business as public journalists, and without any malice towards the plaintiff, and was a fair and bona fide com ment on the trial of the plaintiff, and the evidence given thereat, which were then matters of public interest in and the neigh. bourhood.

NO SUFFICIENT PUBLICATION.

No. 32.

No Publication.- No Slander.

DEFENCE TO CLAIM No. 13.

"1. The defendant denies that the plaintiff was or had at any time been retained or employed by him to act as his solicitor.

"2. The defendant denies that he spoke or published the words alleged or any of them.

"3. The defendant denies that he spoke the said words of or concerning the plaintiff in the way of his profession, or that the said words bore or were intended to bear the meaning alleged.

"4. If the defendant did speak the said words (which he denies), he says that no person other than the plaintiff was present or heard the same.

"5. The defendant will contend that the words which he spoke, if any, were only abuse, and did not amount to defamatory matter."

No. 33.

No Conscious Publication,

The defendants are booksellers and newsvendors carrying on such business on a very extensive scale at 186, Strand, in the city of Westminster, and at branches at Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester, and at upwards of 500 railway stations in the United Kingdom. Their servants in the course of their employment in the defendants' said business received the newspaper mentioned in the second paragraph of the Statement of Claim from the publisher thereof, and the

said newspaper was thereupon sold by the defendants' servants in the ordinary course of the defendants' said business and not otherwise, and without any knowledge of its contents, which is the alleged publication. Neither of the defendants nor their servants knew at the time they sold it that the said newspaper contained any libel on the plaintiff; it was not by negligence on the part of the defendants or their servants that they did not know there was any libel in the said newspaper; and the defendants did not know that the said newspaper was of such a character that it was likely to contain libellous matter, nor ought they to have known so; wherefore the defendants say that they never published the alleged libel.

[See Emmens v. Pottle & Son (C. A.), 16 Q. B. D. 354; 55 L. J. Q. B. 51; 34 W. R. 116; 53 L. T. 808.]

No. 34.

Innocent Publication of a Libellous Novel.

The defendants admit that they printed and published the book or novel in the Statement of Claim mentioned, but deny that they did so maliciously or with any reference to the plaintiff. The defendants printed and published the said book or novel for the writer thereof, reasonably and bond fide believing the same to be a work of pure fiction. The defendants were not then aware and do not now admit that the said book or novel alluded to the plaintiff or to any other living person.

It may be doubted whether this is a defence to the action or only a plea in mitigation of damages; see ante, pp. 178, 458; R. v. Knell, 1 Barnard. 305; Smith v. Ashley, 52 Mass. (11 Met.) 367.

No. 35.

No Conscious Publication-Madness.

"1. The defendant does not admit that he ever spoke or published the words complained of in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Statement of Claim.

"2. Throughout the month of April and the early part of May, 1879, the defendant was suffering from acute mania, brought on by overwork; he has no recollection of having spoken any such words as alleged either then or at any other time. If, however, the defendant