Defence of the Defendant C. G.

1. The defendant C. G. says that the alleged libel complained of by the plaintiff in his statement of claim was contained in a public newspaper called "Gazette," and was inserted in such newspaper without actual malice or gross negligence.

2. The defendant C. G. further says that at the earliest opportunity after the commencement of this action, he inserted in such newspaper a full apology for the said libel.

3. He brings into Court the sum of £10 by way of amends for the injury sustained by the plaintiff by the publication of the said libel, and says that the said sum is enough to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff in respect thereof.

7. Action for Slander and Libel, the former in the French Language.

1. On the 1st of May, 1876, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff, in the French language, the words following, that is to say-[Here follow the alleged defamatory words set out verbatim in French]-which said words as translated into the English language bear, and were understood by the persons to whom they were published to bear the meaning following, that is to say-[Here follows a translation of the words in English].

2. The defendant meant thereby and imputed that the plaintiff at the time of the speaking of the said words was and had for a long time been suffering from a contagious disease, rendering him unfit to mix in society.

3. On the 5th of May, 1876, the defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published in a letter addressed to one J. F., of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning him in the way of his profession as a teacher of music, the words following, that is to say-[Here set out the words in full] -meaning thereby that the plaintiff was a man of dissolute habits and profligate life, and not fit for an appointment as music master in any academy for young ladies.

The plaintiff claims :

(1) £500 damages for the slander set out in the 1st

paragraph.

(2) £500 damages for the libel set out in the 3rd paragraph.

8. Action for Slander of a Man in the way of his Trade.

1. The plaintiff at the time of the grievance hereinafter mentioned was and still is a manufacturer of brushes and brooms, carrying on his business at

2. On or about the 1st of June, 1877, the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff in relation to his said trade and business as aforesaid, the words following, that is to say: "You have got a commission to buy for that fellow H. (meaning thereby the plaintiff), who always lets his cheques go back. He (meaning the plaintiff) can pay for nothing. In fact, he never pays anybody. He is sued in all directions, and has had the bailiffs in his warehouse. Indeed, he never pays anybody until he is compelled, and his business will soon be shut up;" meaning thereby that the plaintiff as such trader had been guilty of fraudulent and dishonest practices, and that he was insolvent and unable to pay his just debts.

3. The said words were spoken and published in the hearing of Messrs. G. & Co., merchants, of L., and Mr. W., broker, of L.; and by reason of the speaking and publishing of the said words in their hearing the said Messrs. G. and Mr. W. refused to sell goods to the plaintiff on credit as they otherwise would have done, and to have any dealings or transactions with the plaintiff in the way of his trade and business, and the plaintiff thereby incurred damage and injury to his credit and otherwise.

The plaintiff claims £500.

9. Defence alleging that the Words complained of were spoken by the Defendant as an Advocate in Defence of his Client. When the alleged words were spoken the defendant was a solicitor and as such solicitor was engaged in defending one A. B., who was charged with an offence before the stipendiary

magistrate having jurisdiction at B. The alleged words were spoken (if at all) while he was engaged as such advocate as aforesaid and in the capacity of advocate, and not otherwise.

Action against Husband for a Libel by his Wife-See" Husband and Wife," post.

10. Claim in an Action for Slander of Title (a).

1. The plaintiffs were at the times hereinafter mentioned and still are vocalists, and had been and were engaged to sing at the S. Music Hall, K., and also at the L. P. Music Hall, for reward.

2. On the 15th day of May, 1875, the defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published of the plaintiffs, in the form of a letter addressed to E. W., the proprietor of the S. Music Hall, and of them as such vocalists, and of their engagement at the S. Music Hall, the words following, that is to say :"January 15th, 1875.--E. W. Esq. My dear Sir,-Although I know it is quite unintentional on the part of the lady advertisers (meaning the plaintiffs), the advertisement attached at foot, if relied upon in every particular by proprietors engaging them, is calculated to lead such proprietors to incur the penalties under the Copyright Act in certain cases, as I hold the power of attorney over the performing rights of certain musical publications belonging to two houses therein named, who only have the copyrights vested in them, and a separate and distinct property never held by them. If all proprietors knew this it would be best; but I have not time to apprise them. I remain yours truly, H. W.;" meaning that the plaintiffs had no right to sing certain songs which they advertised themselves as about to sing at the said music hall.

(a) In the case of an action for slander of title the plaintiff must show that the words complained of were written or spoken (it does not matter which) (Malachy v. Soper, 3 N. C. 371) maliciously, that they were false, and that actual damage has ensued to something which is the plaintiff's property. (Wren v. Wild, L. R. 4 Q. B. 730; 38 L. J. Q. B. 327; Hart v. Wall, 46 L. J. 227; and the recent case of Halsey v. Brotherhood, 19 Ch. D. 386.) As to publishing without justification an untrue statement disparaging a man's goods, and thereby causing him special damage, see West Counties Manure Co. v. Lawes Chemical Manure Co. (L. R. 9 Ex. 218).

3. In consequence thereof, and of the publication of the said words, E. W. dismissed the plaintiffs from his service and terminated the said engagement at the S. Music Hall.

4. On the 19th day of January, 1875, the defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published of the plaintiffs, in the form of a letter addressed to E. L., Esq., the proprietor of the L. P. Music Hall, and of them as such vocalists and their engagement at the said music hall, the words following, that is to say-[Here followed the letter, which was to the same effect as the letter set out in paragraph 2].

5. In consequence of the publication of these words, E. L. dismissed the plaintiffs from his service, and refused to employ them to sing at the said music hall. The plaintiffs claim £100 damages.

Demurrage.

See Charter-party.

Demurrer (a).

Detinue ().

1. Claim in an Action of Detinue.

The defendant detains from the plaintiff the plaintiff's goods and chattels, that is to say, a horse, harness, and gig.

(a) Demurrers are now abolished, and all the learning on the subject is now obsolete. "No demurrer shall be allowed," Order XXV. r. 1. See p. 77 for remarks on the procedure which has been substituted for demurrers.

(b) This action is for the specific recovery of goods, deeds, or writings When an detained from the defendant by the plaintiff (1 Chit. Pl. 121), and it lies action for for the wrongful detention whether the taking was in the first instance detinue lawful or not. (Ibid.) It is sufficient to maintain this action if the lies. plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the goods. (Gledstane v. Hewitt. 1 C. & J. 565; Newton v. Beck, 27 L. J. Ex. 272; Olliver v. Olliver, 31 L. J. C. P. 4.)

The distinction between this action and trover is that the latter action Distinction only lies for damages for a conversion, and the goods themselves cannot between (in theory) be recovered, though the effect of this distinction is really detinue inappreciable in practice, as juries are usually directed by consent to give and trover.

The plaintiff claims a return of the said goods and chattels, or their value, and £10 for their detention.

2. Claim in an Action for Detinue against a Police Officer. The defendant detains from the plaintiff the plaintiff's goods and chattels, that is to say, one diamond ring and one diamond pin.

Distinction a verdict for damages greater than the value, with the condition that it between be reduced to 40s. if the goods are restored. In detinue the plaintiff detinue claims to have the specific goods restored as well as damages for their and trover. detention, and the judgment is that the plaintiff recovers the goods if they can be obtained from the defendant by the sheriff, and a certain sum fixed by the jury for their detention; and if the goods cannot be had. then a certain sum assessed by the jury as their value, besides damages for detention, with costs. Where several chattels are claimed in detinue the value of each should be assessed separately, as the defendant may return some of them but not others. (Phillips v. Jones, 19 L. J. Q. B. 374.)

Provision

of C. L. P. Act, 1854,

as to re

peated distresses.

If all or any of the goods are delivered up to the plaintiff after action brought, the plaintiff cannot have judgment as regards the goods so delivered; but he may have judgment for damages for their detention if damage has been sustained, and recover the residue of the goods, or their value, besides damages for their detention. (Crossfield v. Such. 22 L. J. Ex. 65.)

6.

By 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125 (Common Law Procedure Act, 1854), s. 78, The Court or a judge shall have power, if they or he see fit so to do. upon the application of the plaintiff in any action for the detention of any chattels, to order that execution shall issue for the return of the chattel detained, without giving the defendant the option of retaining such chattel, upon paying the value assessed; and that if the said chattel cannot be found, and unless the Court or a judge should otherwise order. the sheriff shall distrain the defendant by all his lands and chattels in the said sheriff's bailiwick till the defendant render such chattel; or, at the option of the plaintiff, that he cause to be made of the defendant's goods the assessed value of such chattel: Provided that the plaintiff shall, either by the same or a separate writ of execution, be entitled to have made of the defendant's goods the damages, costs, and interest in such action." The option given by this section does not apply where at the trial the value has not been assessed. (Chilton v. Carrington, 24 L. J. C. P. 78.)

In Bullock v. Dunlop (46 L. J. Ex. 150; 2 Ex. D. 43), the plaintiff was tried and acquitted on a charge of stealing a diamond ring and pin. The defendant, a superintendent of police, into whose hands the ring and pin had come in the ordinary course, did not deliver the goods to the plaintiff, but within a reasonable time applied to a magistrate, under the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 71, s. 29, for an order, as to how he was to dispose of the goods. The magistrate, after hearing evidence, adjourned the further hearing to a day not yet expired at the time of action brought. In action of detinue held that a defence based upon the above facts was an answer to the action.

Detinue is an action of tort within the County Courts Act, 1867. (Bryant v. Herbert, 47 L. J. 670; 3 C. P. D. 389.) By sect. 5 of that Act, a plaintiff in an action of tort was not entitled to his costs unless he recovered a sum exceeding £10; but now by the 45 & 46 Vict. c. 57, s. 4, he is entitled to his costs if he recovers not less than £10.