Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/186

166 l66 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, such narrative shall be divided into paragraphs numbered consecu- tively, and each paragraph containing, as nearly as may be, a sepa- rate and distinct statement or allegation; (3) that the bill shall pray specifically for the relief which the plaintiff conceives himself entitled to, and also for general relief; (4) that the bill shall not contain any interrogatories for the examination of the defendant. It will be seen that the first three clauses are purely affirmative, while the fourth is purely negative. Of the three affirmative clauses, the second alone makes a change ; and that change, more- over, while it brings the bill to that extent into conformity with the pleadings of the civil and canon law,^ affects it only in its su- perficial and mechanical aspects. The fourth clause abolishes the interrogating part of the bill, but it remains to be seen what is provided in its place. Nothing is said about charges of evidence, and, therefore, they cannot be abolished ; and yet it seems pretty clear that their continued existence was not contemplated. Nor could any one guess, from the language of the section, that the " facts, matters, and circumstances," mentioned in the first clause, might constitute a replication as well as an original case. By sects. 12 and 13 it is enacted that the defendant shall not be required to answer the bill, unless interrogatories are filed by the plaintiff, within a time to be limited by a general order, and a copy thereof delivered to the defendant ; but that the defendant shall be entitled to plead, answer, or demur, whether interrogatories be filed or not. By sect. 14 it is enacted that the answer may contain not only the defendant's answer to said interrogatories, but such statements material to the case as the defendant may think it necessary or ad- visable to make, and then a clause is added similar to the second clause in sect, 10. This clearly leaves the answer unchanged in substance, though one would scarcely suspect from the language employed that by " such statements material to the case as the defendant may think it necessary or advisable to make," was meant statements constituting either an affirmative defence or an affirma- tive rejoinder. Altogether, the enactments contained in these four sections (10, 12, 13, and 14) are truly remarkable. The hopes excited by the fourth clause of sect. 10 are dashed to the ground by the subse- quent sections ; for we find, first, that the interrogatories, though 1 See vol. xi. 143-4.