PLEADING AND EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANT. 193 



By Ord. XIX. r. 20, it shall not be sufficient for a Specific de- 

 defendant in bis defence to deny generally the facts ^^^^ ™^^' ^® 

 alleged by the Statement of Claim; but the defendant 

 must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which 

 he does not admit the truth. 



By Ord. XIX. r. 23, when a contract is alleged in any Denial of 

 pleading, a bare denial of the contract by the opposite Contract, 

 party shall be construed only as a denial of the making of 

 the contract in fact, and not of its legality or its sufficiency 

 in law, whether with reference to the Statute of Frauds or 

 otherwise. This rule requires the defendant specifically to 

 allege in his defence that he relies on the objection to the 

 contract arising under the Statute {n). 



And by Ord. XIX. r. 25, whenever it is material to Allegation of 

 allege malice or fraudident intention, knowledge or other ^^fialice, &c. 

 condition of the mind of any person, it shall be sufficient 

 to allege the same as a fact without setting out the circum- 

 stances from which the same is to be inferred. 



The ordinary e\ddence of detention is that the defendant Defence for 

 refused to deliver the goods when demanded (o). It is no q^qo^*^*^" °^ 

 defence to show that the goods were not in his possession 

 when demanded if he had improperly parted with the 

 possession {p), as where he had sold them, or lost them by 

 carelessness {q). 



Where goods have been deposited or pledged with the 

 defendant as part of an illegal or immoral agreement, the 

 maxim " In pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis " 

 appHes, and the plaintiff cannot recover them (r). 



In an action for goods bargained and sold the defendant. Defence for 

 provided that he plead them specially, may rely on any of G^oods^ar- 

 the following facts, viz., that the defendant never bought a ^old and for 

 Horse of the plaintiff at all, or that the sale was invalid not accepting. 

 under the Statute of Frauds (s) ; or where he did not see 

 the Horse before piu-chase he may show that it does 72ot 

 correspond Avith its description (/) ; or where it has been 

 ordered for a pai-ticular jiiu-pose, for instance, to run in a 

 carriage, he may show that it was unjit for that pur- 



(») Clarice v. Callow, 46 L. J., (;•) Tai/lor v. C/iester, L,. B., 4^ Q. 



Q. B. 53— C. A. B. 309 ; 38 L. J., Q. B. 225. 



(o) Jones V. Bowie, 9 M. & W. (v) Johnson v. Bodgson, 2 M. & 



19. W. 653 ; Elliott v. Thomas, 3 ibid. 



{p) Ibid. 170 ; Buttermere v. Hayes, 5 ibid. 



\q) Reeve v. Palmer, 28 L. J., 456. 



C. P. 168. [t) See Street v. Blay, 2 B. & Ad. 



456 ; Parsons v. Sexton, 4 C. B. 905. 



O. O 



