This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1903 edition. Excerpt: ...and stole it, whorewith he acquainted the plaintiff. And it was objected that the Rejoinder was a departure; for the Rejoinder did not show an accounting, but an excuse for not accounting. But the Court held that showing he was robbed of a sum of money, was giving an account of it, and that therefore there was no departure. Vere v. Smith, 2 Lev. 5; Vent. 121. Yet a plaintiff might always "new assign " in his Reply; in other words, though he might not set up a new claim, he might explain and define his original claim, a thing which it was often necessary to do in the days when declarations were worded in very general terms. Thus, in an action for repeated trespasses to a close of land, if the defendant pleaded that he had a right of way across that close, the plaintiff might reply that his action was brought, not in respect of the defendant's exercise of the right of way, but because he constantly wandered out of the line of way on to other parts of the close. Such a reply would not be a departure; for it merely points out the exact nature and extent of the plaintiffs original claim. Pratt v. G-roome, 15 East, 235. Oakley V. Davis, 16 East, S2. And see Breslauer v. Barwick, 2-1 W. R. 901; 36 L. T. 52. Uollett v. Dickinson, 26 W. R. 403. Where a Counterclaim is pleaded, the Reply to it is really a Defence. The plaintiff cannot join issue on a Counterclaim. "It shall not be sufficient for a plaintiff in his Reply to deny generally the facts alleged by the defendant in his Counterclaim; he must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages." (Order XIX. r. 17; Benbow v. Low, 13 Ch. D. 553; 49 L. J. Ch. 259; Green v. Sevin, 13 Ch. D. p. 595; 41 L. T. 724.) He...