The dispute between the parties traditionally defined at common law by pleadings. By the early 19th century special for pleading became the focus of the action and the crucial to the success of the plaintiff's case. A very large portion of the time of the courts was occupied in discussing points of this nature and the success of the suit depends greatly upon the regularity and accuracy of the pleadings and when the Delay, the expense, and even the failure of justice which frequently takes place from inattention to these particulars are considered favourable reception of this work is anticipated. Decisions are made on the basis of former the pleadings without regard to the facts or two justice. The plaintiff in a defamation action at this time pleaded the action on the case by slanderous words or by libel. It was common to frame the action to allege the defendant published the words fall slim maliciously, but these are not elements of the plaintiff's case.
Plaintiffs constantly failed as a result of small and unimportant variations between the words of the libel or slander set out in the pleadings and the proof of them. In one case a plaintiff complained of words in his pleading €this is my umbrella, and he stole it from my backdoor€. However, at the trial he proved that the following words were said €it is my umbrella, and he stole it from my backdoor€. The plaintiff failed on the basis of the evidence showed that the umbrella was not in the presence of the speaker. The word referred to an umbrella which was present at the word it referred to one which was absent, therefore the evidence was considered to be completely different to the pleading. The practice pleading change in England in the mid-19th century so that was enough to prove the substance of the words alleged or words to that effect although not exactly the same. If the words proved manner materially different allegation to that pleaded amendment would be necessary if the allegation were to be relied upon the jury would be directed that they thought the defending used in substance, the words, or a material and foundry part of the words complained of they should so fine in the defendant would be liable.
While the pleading rules are changed, the form of the pleadings in defamation cases is often so a matter of great complexity and controversy, and to some extent the old pleading rules remain relevant. Under the old pleading rules the defendant had the option of pleading a number of ways which meant the general traverse amounting to a denial of all the facts and placing more on issue, special traverse amounting to a denial of the material fact specifically put in issue, at the which amounted to an admission of the facts but a denial that they amounted to a case in law producing initiative determination of the law without the facts being in dispute or a confession and avoidance amounting to an admission of a fax but introducing new facts to justify or excuse the conduct complained off and make out one of the available defences.
Plaintiffs constantly failed as a result of small and unimportant variations between the words of the libel or slander set out in the pleadings and the proof of them. In one case a plaintiff complained of words in his pleading €this is my umbrella, and he stole it from my backdoor€. However, at the trial he proved that the following words were said €it is my umbrella, and he stole it from my backdoor€. The plaintiff failed on the basis of the evidence showed that the umbrella was not in the presence of the speaker. The word referred to an umbrella which was present at the word it referred to one which was absent, therefore the evidence was considered to be completely different to the pleading. The practice pleading change in England in the mid-19th century so that was enough to prove the substance of the words alleged or words to that effect although not exactly the same. If the words proved manner materially different allegation to that pleaded amendment would be necessary if the allegation were to be relied upon the jury would be directed that they thought the defending used in substance, the words, or a material and foundry part of the words complained of they should so fine in the defendant would be liable.
While the pleading rules are changed, the form of the pleadings in defamation cases is often so a matter of great complexity and controversy, and to some extent the old pleading rules remain relevant. Under the old pleading rules the defendant had the option of pleading a number of ways which meant the general traverse amounting to a denial of all the facts and placing more on issue, special traverse amounting to a denial of the material fact specifically put in issue, at the which amounted to an admission of the facts but a denial that they amounted to a case in law producing initiative determination of the law without the facts being in dispute or a confession and avoidance amounting to an admission of a fax but introducing new facts to justify or excuse the conduct complained off and make out one of the available defences.