2. That the plaintiff accordingly purchased from the defendant bis said shop, godowns, aud goods, and the good-will of the said business for the price and at the terms aforesaid, and paid the sum of Rs.

for the same.

3. That the plaintiff duly performed all the conditions of said agreement on his part.

4. That the defendant afterwards, to wit, on the

-

- at

day of

Good-will Defined. This term is usually used to denote the benefit arising from connection and reputation; and its value is what can be got for the chance of being able to keep that connection and improve it.*

delivered to the defendant one hundred hides of leather, of the value to be manufactured into harness, for a reasonable com

of Rs.
pensation, to be paid to the defendant by the plaintiff.

2. That the defendant, in consideration thereof, undertook to manufacture the said harness, or cause it to be manufactured, from the leather, and to deliver the same to the plaintiff when so manufactured,

3. That the defendant did not manufacture said leather into harness, although a reasonable time therefor elapsed before this suit (or that the said leather was so manufactured into harness by the defendant before the day of 18 on which day the plaintiff demanded the same of the defendant, and then and there offered to pay him a reasonable compensation for manufacturing the same, but the defendant, then and ever since, refused and neglected to deliver the same, and has converted them to his own use).

* Lindley, 3rd ed. 884; Arundell v. Bell, W. N. 1883, 27.

Form No. 219.

AGAINST TELEGRAPH COMPANY FOR FAILURE TO TRANSMIT
MESSAGE AS DIRECTED.

Plaintiff states:

1. That the defendants are, and at all the times hereinafter mentioned were, engaged in the business of telegraphing for hire.

2. That on the day of

18

the plaintiff presented to the defendant, at its office in the following message, to wit:"John Doe, Calcutta. Buy one hundred tons of rice. James Roe (the plaintiff)," which message the defendant received and promised to forward by telegraph to said John Doe in Calcutta ; and in consideration thereof the plaintiff paid the defendant Rs.

3. That, on account of the negligence of the defendant, said message was not transmitted as written by plaintiff, but was sent and delivered to said John Doe so as to read as follows: "John Doe, Calcutta. Buy five hundred tons of rice. James Roe."

4. That said John Doe, in pursuance of said message so delivered to him, bought five hundred tons of rice on account of the plaintiff; that immediately on learning the error in said telegram, plaintiff notified the defendant of the same, and that through said error four hundred tons of rice had been bought more than was directed to be bought by the original message written by the plaintiff; and plaintiff asked instructions from defendant relative to the disposition of said four hundred tons; that defendant refused to take any notice thereof, or give any instructions concerning said rice, and the plaintiff thereupon sold the same at Calcutta on the 18 , at the highest market-rate.

day of

5. That the price paid by the plaintiff for said rice was Rs. and plaintiff was compelled to pay the further sum of Rs. mission on said purchase; that plaintiff sold said rice for Rs. and was compelled to pay Rs.

commission on said sale.

com

Suit by Receiver of Message.-The receiver of a telegraphic message cannot maintain an action against the company for a mistake in transmitting a message, whereby he has been damnified; because the obligation of the company to use due care and skill in the transmission of the message is one entirely arising out of the contract, and the contract is made with the sender of the message."

Playford v. United Kingdom Telegraph Co., L. R., 4 Q. B. 706; Dickson v. Reuter's Telegraph Co., 3 C. P. D. 1.

ant assaulted and beat him about the head and shoulders.

Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment for Rs.

Form No. 221.

THE SAME WITH SPECIAL DAMAGE.

the defend

3

compensation. ·

Plaintiff states:

1. That on the day of

18 at

the defendant assaulted the plaintiff, and struck him (state where) several blows, and also tore the clothes from the plaintiff's person.

2. That the plaintiff was thereby disabled from attending to his business for six weeks thereafter, and was compelled to pay Rs. for medical attendance, and has ever since been disabled from using his right arm (or otherwise state the damage, as the case may be).

Definitions.-An assault is an attempt to do a corporal injury to another, coupled with a present ability, or any act or gesture, from which an intention to commit a battery may be implied. It is an offer to strike, beat, or commit an act of violence on the person of another without actually doing it, or touching his person, as striking at a person with the hand or a stick, or presenting a gun at him. Battery is the wilful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.

Master and Servant.-The master is liable for the servant, if he acts within the scope of his authority.

* Read v. Cocker, L. J., 22 C. P. 201.

Measure of Damages.-Where the assault is without provocation, the damages given should be commensurate to the injury and annoyance caused, even though there has been no serious personal injury sustained.*

Form No. 222.

AGAINST A RAILWAY COMPANY FOR ASSAULT AND FORCIBLE

Plaintiff states:

EJECTION.

1. That at the times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant was, and now is, a Railway Company, duly organized and existing under (state the Act or Charter), and was the owner of a certain railway known as the Railway, with the truck, carriages, and other appurtenances thereunto belonging, and was a common carrier of passengers from

2. That on the

to

day of

at

the defendant, with unnecessary violence, assaulted the plaintiff, and forcibly ejected him from one of its carriages.

3. That the plaintiff was thereby injured in his arm, and much bruised about his chest and face, and was thereby rendered unfit for days to attend to his business of (state further special

ant assaulted the plaintiff, and charged him with (state what offence), and gave him into custody of a policeman, and forced and compelled him to go to a police-station, and there caused him to be imprisoned, and caused him to be kept in prison for a long time, until he was afterwards brought in custody before the Magistrate of and the defendant again charged him with the said offence; but the said Magistrate dismissed the said charge, and discharged the plaintiff out of custody.

2. That by reason thereof the plaintiff suffered great pain of body and mind and was exposed and injured in his credit and circu instances, and was prevented from carrying on his business and from providing for his family by his personal care and attention, and incurred expense in obtaining his liberation from the said imprisonment (or as the case may be).

ant, by force, compelled the plaintiff to go with him to the police-station, and there accused him of (state what offence), and gave him into the custody of a constable upon the said charge.

2. That plaintiff, upon being so given into custody, was there imprisoned and detained in a cell of the police-station for hours, without probable cause, and against the will of the plaintiff.

3. That thereafter plaintiff was taken in custody before the Magistrate of when the charge against him was heard, and dismissed.

4. That, in consequence thereof, the plaintiff suffered annoyance and disgrace, and loss of time and wages, and loss of credit and reputation, and was thereby unable to obtain any employment or earn any wages for three months.