stole from the defendant one bale of hay, to which the defendant referred when speaking (or writing or printing) the words stated in the plaint. PART II. Div. II. Suits for Compensation for Wrongs. 1. That the articles in the plaint mentioned, as having been charged by defendant to have been stolen by the plaintiff, had, at the time mentioned in the plaint, been stolen from the defendant. 2. That defendant is informed and believes that the plaintiff has been and is guilty of the charge in the plaint alleged to have been made against her by the defendant, and that whatever the defendant has said concerning the plaintiff she has said in the full belief of its truth, and in self-vindication and warning to others, and not from any motives of malice towards the plaintiff. Form No. 489. MITIGATION-REPUBLICATION OF MATTER AS NEWS. In mitigation of compensation to which the plaintiff might otherwise appear entitled by reason of the publication of the said supposed libellous articles, this defendant alleges that all the matters and things stated in the said articles were, on the day of 18 at municated to this defendant, and were published by him as matters of current public news, the defendant verily believing the same to be true, PART II. Mitigation of Damages.-Defendant may prove in mitigation of damages Defences. that the plaintiff published libels of him, provided that they relate to the same matter; ; or the bad reputation of plaintiff; † or that rumours of the facts asserted were Suits for prevalent in the neighbourhood; or that the statement was copied from another Compen- paper.§ Div. II. sation for Wrongs. Court of , in which A B was plaintiff, and the plaintiff herein was defendant (or the plaintiff was tried before the Sessions Judge of or otherwise as the case may be). on a charge of 2. That the article published in the defendant's newspaper mentioned in the plaint was a fair and true report of the testimony of one of the witnesses named (or was a fair and true statement of the proceedings therein) made in the course of the said trial. Form No. 491. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. Defendant states:— 1. That A B, mentioned in the plaint, inquired of the defendant the character of the plaintiff, with a view of employing him as a clerk (or as the case may be), and the defendant then stated to him the matter referred to in the plaint. 2. That the defendant had probable cause for believing, and did believe, the same to be true. * Watts v. Fraser, 7 A. and E. 223; May v. Brown, 3 B. and C. 111; Tarpley v. Blaby, 2 Bing. N. C. 437. + Richards v. Richards, 2 M. and Rob. 557. Richards v. Richards, supra. § Saunders v. Mills, 6 Bing. 213. That at the time of the grievance alleged the defendant was not the owner, and had not the possession or control of the premises in which said hole or hatchway was. That he denies that the carriage mentioned in the plaint was the defendant's carriage, or that it was under the charge or control of the defendant's servants. The carriage belonged to A B and Co. of Street livery stable-keepers, employed by the defendant to supply him with carriages and horses; and the person under whose charge and control the said carriage was, was the servant of the said A B and Co. Measure of Damages.-In an action for injuries caused by the defendant's negligence, a sum recovered by the plaintiff on an accidental insurance policy cannot be taken into account in reduction of damages.* Form No. 494. PLAINTIFF'S OWN NEGLIGENCE. Defendant states: That the defendant and his servants used due care and diligence about the construction of said building (or, in repairing said street, and replacing the pavement thereof; or in guarding the said excavation with proper bulwarks, and in putting up lights during the night time; or otherwise according to the allegations in the plaint), and that said injury was not caused by any negligence on the part of the defendant or his servants, but was owing to the negligence and fault of the plaintiff himself. * Bradshaw v. Great Western Railway Company, L. R., 10 Ex. 1. PART II. Contributory Negligence.-This is a good defence; if the immediate and Defences. proximate cause of the injury was the unskilfulness or negligence of the plaintiff, he DIV. II. cannot recover, although there was negligence in the defendant, but this rule is subject Suits for to this limitation, that if the defendant, by the exercise of ordinary care on his part, Compen- might have avoided the consequences of the plaintiff's negligence, and yet does not choose to exercise such care, the plaintiff may still recover. sation for Wrongs. There seems to have been some indecision in England on the question how far a child of tender years can be guilty of contributory negligence; on this subject the cases noted below may be consulted.† Form No. 495. DENIAL OF NEGLIGENCE-PLAINTIFF'S OWN NEGLIGENCE. 1. That he denies that his said carriage was turned of 2. That the defendant might and could, by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, have seen the said carriage approaching him, and avoided any collision with it. Form No. 496. DENIAL OF POSSESSION OF VISCIOUS DOG. Defendant states: That he does not own the said dog, and never did; and that he was not the possessor of the said dog at the time of the grievances alleged, nor at any other time, before or since. Defendant states: Form No. 497. DENIAL OF SCIENTER, That at the time of the grievances alleged the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that the said dog was accustomed to bite mankind, or was of a mischievous nature (or otherwise according to the allegations of the plaintiff). Radley v. L. and N. W. R. Co., 1 App. Cas. 754; 46 L. J., H. L., 573; Davis v. Mann, 10 M. and W. 546. + Lynch v. Nurdin, 1 Q. B. 29; Abbott v. Macfie, and Hughes v. Macfie, L. R., 33 Ex. 177; Mangan v. Atterson, L. R., 1 Ex. 239. That he was not negligent in and about selling said goods, but sold the same with due diligence, and for as large a price as he could obtain Form No. 499. DENIAL OF NEGLIGENCE IN GIVING CREDIT. Defendant states:— That he sold said goods to one A B, who was a merchant at in good standing and credit, for the sum of Rs. payment of said sum he took the ; and for the bill of the said A B drawn on and accepted by one C D, payable in months after date, which bill was at the time held and considered an approved bill. Form No. 500. DENIAL OF INJURY BY DOG. Defendant states: That the said dog did not kill the sheep alleged, or any one of them, nor did he injure or worry them, or any of them. Form No. 501. PLAINTIFF'S OWN NEGLIGENCE. Defendant states: That at the time mentioned in the plaint, the defendant was driving his said carriage in the highway, and the horse of the plaintiff, being at the same time there, was so carelessly, negligently, and improperly managed by the plaintiff, that by reason thereof the carriage of F. P.-46 |