were dishonest and dishonourable persons and traders; and that the plaintiffs had no right or title to use the trade name "Monte Cristo Champagne or to advertise or sell any wines bearing that name. 5. By reason of the premises the plaintiffs have suffered much loss and damage and have been injured in their credit and good name and in their said business.

PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGE.

Loss of Business.

[Here insert particulars. See Precedent No. 17.]

Loss of Customers.

[Here insert particulars.

See Precedent No. 16.]

The plaintiff claims damages.

[See Hatchard v. Mège, 18 Q. B. D. 771; 56 L. J. Q. B. 397; 35 W. R. 576; 56 L. T. 662. Also Precedent No. 9.]

DEFENCES.

No. 24.

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 bonâ 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. 25.

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

the Statement of Claim.

as alleged in paragraph 1 of

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 any of the said words of the plaintiff either in relation to his said trade, &c. [Follow the exact words of the Statement of Claim].

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 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. 26.

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 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 Penrhyn v. The "Licensed Victualler's Mirror,” (1890) 7 Times L. R. 1 (Mathew and Grantham, JJ.), in which case the Court ordered Particulars to be given of paragraph 3.

No. 27.

Fair and Accurate Report and Fair Comment thereon.

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 of 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 bonâ 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 honest comment on the matters above referred to, and was published by the defendant bonâ 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.]

* If the report and the comment thereon all form part of the same article the plea might run thus:-"The said words, in so far as they consist of statements of fact, are a fair and accurate report of Parliamentary Proceedings published bonâ fide and without malice, and in so far as they consist of expressions of opinion they are a fair and honest comment on a matter of public interest."

[Particulars should be given identifying the Parliamentary Proceedings.]

No. 28.

No Libel-Fair Comment.

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 Assizes, before Mr. Justice

May 2nd, 1895, at the

on a charge of manslaughter.

A full report of the said trial appeared in the same issue of the defendants' 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 bonâ fide comment on the trial of the plaintiff, and the evidence given thereat, which were then matters of public interest in neighbourhood.

and the

No SUFFICIENT PUBLICATION.

No. 29.

No Publication.-No Slander.

DEFENCE TO CLAIM No. 15.

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 bear or were understood 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, and were understood as, vulgar abuse, and did not amount to defamatory matter.

No. 30.

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 that 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, 16 Q. B. D. 354; 55 L. J. Q. B. 51; 34 W. R. 116; 53 L. T. 808.]

No. 31.

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 bona 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.

[See Harrison v. Smith, 20 L. T. at p. 715; R. v. Knell, 1 Barnard. 305; Smith v. Ashley, 52 Mass. (11 Met.) 367. And see ante pp. 144-148.]

No. 32.

No Conscious Publication-Madness.

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