The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-03-15

REGARDED ~ proper sources for the correct rule ~
practice In a CONNIE n-law action IKE the pres
emit
The question ~ the suficleney Of the plea Of
Justification does not properly arise here the
plea, however. is perfectly good and suhicic ~.
The rule Of pleading applicable To Justification
IN libel IL this: Where the charge complained 81
" specific, the plea need only allege that " is
true. Whero tho charHe on'nI laimru oi 81 scn
which show that 1t ~ true. The ALLEGED lb,l IN
this case Il specific II contains reuor imputa-
tiuns, certainly, but these ere IN every instance
accompanied 10y the specinca ions upon whicn
they are based. A general tlca OF tfuth was
plaintiff has mistaken hs remedy. An answer
must state facts sufficient 70 conatitute
dcfeuce. Facts sufficient TO constitute the
defence of justification arc stated only when tie
rule Of pleading already stated IL complied
with. II the plaintiff thought It was not com
Piled with, no should have demurred. On the
argument below, hls counsel eudeavOred to show
that the answer was bad and Therefore should
be mado good by a bill OF particulars. hut u lie
not the Office OF bill Of particulars to remedy
defective pleading. Great stress was laid upon
the remark OF judge HaDdlo, In Hilton vs..
Boccher, that bill OF pal ticulars Is appropriate
where justice demands that party should be
apprised OF the matters Tor which be Is to
he tried, with greater particularly than IL re-
CURED by tine rules OF pleading. Judge Van
Brunt has shown. IN bis opinion IN tnl.
be taken. Hut 1t is apparent that In that class
Of cases where a special plea or It's equivalent ~
required by the rules OF pleading where, In
other words, the answer to DO good at all must
be speCnc-that the degree OF Particularly
WhlCn determines tho Sumci0nCy OF tnO plea ~
the measure Of the particularly to which the
opposite party II entitled. In that class ~ cases
the particularly prescribed by the rules OF
pleading satisfies every dem nd Of Justice.
THR APPLICATION usPRECEDENTED.
n the plaintiff 10y means Of this motion Ia thus
permitted to raise an issue Of law IA to the sun
ciency Of the answer, he Is practically allowed
to demur, not within twenty days, as the Code
requires, but weeks after the expiration OF that
period. Tho application here Vs. unprecedented,
ana even II the Court had the discrc tionary
power to grant IL, the plaintiff has filled to make
out any case for the exercise Of its discretion In
his behalf
The fact that no such motion appears ever to
have been made or granted In the Colony or
State Of New York, from the org uization Of lite
judicial system to the present time, ought To he
controlling rs to the exercise OF that discretion.
assuming II to exist.
The orders appealed from should be reversed
with costs.
MIR. Austin Abbott also for tho Defendants
followed IN u learned argument showing the In
applicability " the plaintiffs cases to the points
upon which they were cited, and insisting upon
the plaintiffs failure 10 show cts calling for the
exercise OF the Cuur.'s discretion. even II the
power were conceded. In answer to question
from the Chief Justice, be said that he agreed
with Mr.. Bartlett a. TO the want Of power in the
Court To grant the plaintiffs application.
he Court took the papers, reservng its de-
clstOu.