2. The Defendant is merely an agent of the Crown, owing no duty to the Plaintiffs and only responsible to Her Majesty and to Parliament. He submits that neither he nor any other of Her Majesty's ministers is liable to be sued in respect of acts done by him as the executive government (or part of the executive government) on behalf of Her Majesty, but that the remedy of the Plaintiffs if any is by Petition of Right to Her Majesty.

3. The claim of the Plaintiffs is in respect of an alleged tort or alleged torts for which neither the Crown nor any agent of the Crown, as such, can be sued either by Petition of Right or otherwise. Her Majesty's Secretary of State for War is not (as the Defendant submits) liable to be restrained by any injunction of this or any other Court.

4. The Defendant does not admit any of the allegations of the first or of the second paragraph of the Statement of Claim.

5. The Defendant denies that he has committed any such trespass as in the Statement of Claim in that behalf alleged, nor has any such trespass been committed by his authority or by any person or persons in his service or under his orders. The Defendant has no authority over the soldiers in Her Majesty's service, they being subject only to their commanding officers. And the Defendant, being only a minister and agent of the Crown, is not in law responsible for any acts or defaults of the soldiers or any other person in Her Majesty's service. The Defendant did not cause or do any of the acts or things alleged in paragraph 3 (a) or paragraph 3 (b) of the Statement of Claim, even if the same were ever done by anyone, which is not admitted, except to the extent hereinafter stated in reference to notice boards.

6-10. [Merits.]

11. The Defendant denies each and every of the allegations of the 6th as also of the 7th paragraph of the Statement of Claim. Such allegations are respectively without any foundation whatsoever in fact.

12. The Defendant submits as matter of law that, for the reasons herein before appearing among others, this action cannot be maintained, and that the same being prosecuted, as it is, after full notice of the various objections thereto ought to be dismissed with costs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
Chancery Division.

Mr. Justice

Between A. B. and C. D.

and

E. F., G. H., &c. (the Lords Commissioners of the

Plaintiff's

Admiralty), and K. L. (the Director of Naval Works) - Defendants.

DEFENCE.

1. The Defendants submit that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this action, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, although entitled in certain circumstances to sue, not being liable to be sued in any of Her Majesty's Courts except in the cases specially provided for by statute, which do not comprise or apply to the claim of the Plaintiffs in this action.

2. The Defendants are merely agents of the Crown, owing no duty to the Plaintiffs, and only responsible to Her Majesty and to Parliament. It is

submitted that they are not liable to be sued in respect of acts done by them as the Executive Government (or part of the Executive Government) on behalf of Her Majesty, but that the remedy of the Plaintiffs, if any, is by Petition of Right to Her Majesty.

3. The claim of the Plaintiffs is in respect of an alleged tort or alleged torts, for which neither the Crown nor any agent of the Crown (and in particular the Director of Naval Works), as such, can be sued, either by Petition of Right or otherwise, and neither the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, nor the Director of Naval Works, are or is, as such, liable to be restrained by any injunction of this or any other Court.

4. The Defendants do not, any of them, know anything or make any admission with respect to any of the matters alleged in the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the Statement of Claim, or any of such paragraphs respectively.

5-8. [Merits.]

9. The Defendants respectively deny that they or any of them have or has been guilty of, or threatened, or intended to commit any trespass, or other wrongful act in the premises. The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are entitled, following the procedure in that behalf prescribed by statute but not otherwise, to acquire, and by way of compulsory purchase if necessary, such portions of the land of the Plaintiffs or of any other persons as may be required, or they may deem expedient, for any purpose of Her Majesty's Navy, or for the purpose of the works specified in the schedule to the Naval Works Act, 1896, and in particular the College for Naval Cadets therein mentioned, and they intend to cause to be taken the necessary legal steps for the acquisition of the lands that have been surveyed and marked out as herein-before mentioned. Save as aforesaid, the defendants deny each and every of the allegations of the 17th paragraph of the Statement of Claim, and they contend that the submission in that behalf stated in the 18th paragraph of the Statement of Claim is not well founded.

10. The Defendants deny that they or any of them have or has been guilty of any wrongful act in the premises, or done anything for which they are liable to be sued by the Plaintiffs, and they submit, as matter of law, that for the reasons herein-before appearing, among others, this action cannot be maintained.

(Raleigh v. Goschen, [1898] 1 Ch. 73; 67 L. J. Ch. 59.)

Defence and Reply in an Action against a Government Department on a Contract.

1. The Defendants object that no claim in this action can in any event be maintained against them upon the contract alleged, and that the Plaintiffs can put forward such claim only (if at all) by Petition of Right.

The Defendants are a corporation under and subject to the provisions of, and with the powers conferred by, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 42, 15 Vict. c. 28, and 37 & 38 Vict. c. 84, and not further or otherwise. The contract mentioned in the Statement of Claim was entered into by the Defendants as servants and agents of the Crown and on behalf of the Crown as a Department of the Government and not otherwise.

2. The Crown, by its officers and servants, the Defendants, accepted a tender from the Plaintiffs to [contract set out].

3. The said contract was embodied in an Indenture dated the

day of

between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, as officers and servants of the Crown. The consideration payable for the erection and completion of the work was to be paid out of public moneys, and the premises were required as offices for the public service.

4-10. [Merits.]

REPLY.

1. The Plaintiffs deny that the contract mentioned in the Statement of Claim was entered into by the Defendants as servants and agents of the Crown, and on behalf of the Crown as a Department of the Government and not otherwise, and they say that the same was entered into by the Defendants as principals. They say the Defendants are a corporation to all intents and purposes.

2-6. [Merits.]

7. The Plaintiffs join issue with the Defendants on the point of law raised in paragraph 1 of the Defence, and submit that the same should be heard and determined by the Court before the trial of the action.

(Graham v. His Majesty's Commrs. of Public Works and Buildings, [1901] 2 K. B. 781; 70 L. J. K. B. 860.)

Pleadings in an Action under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
King's Bench Division.

s. 460.

Between A. B. (on behalf of himself and other the Owners of the steamship X.)

Plaintiff

and

THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

Defendant.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM.

1. The Plaintiff is the Managing Owner and part Owner of the steamship X., of Y., suing on behalf of himself and other the Owners of the said steamship. 2. On or about the 27th February, 19 whilst the said steamship was in the Port of Z., laden with a cargo of coals and coke, in all respects seaworthy and about to proceed to sea on a voyage thence to W., the Defendant, by a person claiming to be duly appointed in that behalf, wrongfully and improperly and without reasonable and probable cause detained the said steamship or caused the detention and survey of the said ship on the alleged ground that the said ship was overladen, whereas in fact she was not overladen but was safely and properly laden, and the Defendant, by such persons as aforesaid, wrongfully and

improperly required and caused a large quantity of cargo to be discharged out of the said steamship before releasing the said steamship or allowing her to proceed upon the said intended voyage.

3. After the said steamship had been detained, surveyed and lightened as aforesaid, the Defendant wrongfully and improperly detained or continued the detention of the said steamship for and until the payment or deposit of a sum of 107. or otherwise by threat of detention or continued detention compelled the Plaintiff to pay or deposit the said sum alleged to be due from the Plaintiff to the Defendant in respect of the said detention and survey.

4. By reason of the premises the Plaintiff was deprived of the use and benefit of the said steamship, and was put to costs and expenses and sustained loss of freight.

1. He is being sued as Secretary of the Board of Trade pursuant to section 460 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and not otherwise.

2. On the X. being a British ship, and in the Port of Z., was, under section 459 of the said Act, provisionally detained by C. (a detaining officer appointed under the said section), who then had reason to believe on the complaint of D. and E. that she was unsafe within the meaning of the said Act by reason of overloading.

3. The said ship was thereafter lightened by the Plaintiff by the removal of cargo from her to such an extent that on she was no longer unsafe as

aforesaid, and was thereupon on the said date released by the said C. 4. It has not appeared, and cannot be made to appear, that there was not on within the meaning of section 460 of the said Act, reasonable and probable cause by reason of the condition of the ship, or the act or default of the Owner, for the said provisional detention of the ship.

5. Save as aforesaid, the Defendant denies each and every of the allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Statement of Claim.

Pleadings in an Action against the Trustees of the British Museum

2. The Defendants are a corporation constituted by the Act of 26 Geo. II. c. 26, and as such are the owners and managers of the British Museum. Defendant, C. D., is the Principal Librarian of the British Museum.

3. In the month of

The

19 and for a long time previously the Defendants falsely and maliciously published, or caused to be published of and concerning

the Plaintiff, certain printed matters in the form of a book [details of alleged libel set out].

4. By reason of the premises the Plaintiff has been greatly injured in his character and reputation and he has been greatly pained and rendered ill, and the Plaintiff has been otherwise damnified, and the said damage is continuing. The Plaintiff claims:

1.—1,000l. damages.

2.-An injunction to restrain the Defendants from continuing to publish the book mentioned in paragraph 3 hereof, and all other books containing similar libels on the Plaintiff.

DEFENCE.

1. The Defendants are not the owners and managers of the British Museum, nor have they any interest therein except as provided by the statute 26 Geo. II. c. 22, to which they refer. The Defendants, the Trustees of the British Museum, are Trustees for putting the said Act into execution.

2. The Defendants did not nor did either of them publish or cause to be published the words complained of or any part thereof as in the Statement of Claim respectively alleged or at all.

3. The words complained of do not bear the meaning alleged by the Plaintiff. 4. The said book was placed in the library of the British Museum under and by virtue of the powers conferred and duty imposed upon the Defendants by the aforesaid statute and subject to the rules and regulations made by the said Trustees in that behalf under the said statute, and none of the Defendants had any knowledge of the contents of the said book, or that it contained any libellous matter, although the Defendants exercised reasonable and proper care in the matters aforesaid, which is the alleged publication.

in

5. By the aforesaid statutes the Trustees are empowered to make such statutes, rules and ordinances as they think fit for the custody, preservation and inspection of every part of the several collections within the British Museum, and otherwise to make byelaws and ordinances for the purposes of the said Act, and pursuance of the powers aforesaid the said Trustees have, with reasonable and proper care, made such rules and regulations for the management of the library of the said Museum and the inspection of the books therein, as they in the discretion given to them by the said statute deem to be consistent with the duty imposed upon them as Trustees of the said Museum for the public and in the public interest. The said books were placed in the library of the said Museum subject to the said rules and regulations and without malice, which is the alleged publication, and if the same constitutes a publication of the alleged libels (which is denied) the Defendants will contend that the occasion was privileged by reason of the matters aforesaid.

6. In all things relating to the management of the British Museum, and in particular the library thereof, and the placing and inspection of books therein, including the book mentioned in the Statement of Claim, the Defendants acted under the authority of the aforesaid statute and in pursuance of the duties imposed upon them thereby and without negligence.