మొు ద టి ప్ర, కరణ ము )以2 'Ramabrahmam's son-in-law was pelting them at plaintiff's instigation because his wife was not sent to live separately with him, and she added that the boy would then be found in Chinaswamy's upstairs from which direction the stones were comming. On going to Chinaswamy's upstairs they did not find the boy there, but they found two stones similar to those which had just fallen on the house; some Goomastah said that these stones were kept there to beat out gold ornaments—an explanation not commending itself to their minds; and Chinnaswamy's 2nd son (38th defence witness) told them that plaintiff's washerman-servant had been seen throwing stones and running to plaintiff's house—more circumstances going to corroborate Sankaramma's accusations. The Forester (54th defence witness) who lodged in Ramabrahmam's house told defendant that plaintiff had asked him to speak to Ramabrahmam to send the boy's wife to live separately with him; and 2nd defence witness told defendant that he had heard the stone-throwing had ceased during a period when the boy's wife had been sent away to Narsapore. The Forester (54th defence witness) corroborates defendant; and the 2nd defence witness states that on the materials then before them he himself formed the opinion that plaintiff had had a hand in the stone-pelting and communicated that opinion to defendant giving practical effect to it by warning the 17th defence witness to vacate the Duggirala house and yard or to send away the suspected lads, Tirupatirazu and "Venkatappayya—which was done a few days afterwards, 18, But, besides the foregoing materials, defendant had more before him by the time that he made the statements on which damages are claimed under this issue. 19. Plaintiff was not in Rajahmundry on that 28th July; but on his return defendant went straight to him and had that interview with him in the High School on 3oth July, which has been referred to under 1st issue. Next day, there
