కీn
- 三_ーツ స్వ య చ 8 رقی ము
moral character (which under the 5th issue he pleads to be true); and he admits that he and plaintiff had ceased to be on good terms since 1881 or 1882. He does not acknowledge personal ill-feeling in 1889 towards plaintiff but says he disliked plaintiff's opinions on social and religious matters. Quite sufficient, however, has been elicited in evidence to show that this qualified description of the state of feeling between the parties cannot be accepted. The effect of the whole evidence as to various causes of friction from 1880 to 1889 disagreements about publishing plaintiff’s articles in defendant’s “ Vivekavarthani” (see Exhibit A), defendant’s attacks on plaintiff’s Theistic School with plaintiff's counter-attacks on defendant’s paper (see Exhibits VIII and E), a split in the night school followed by a split in the Prardhana Samaj in both of which the parties were opposed, attacks on defendant in connection with the Widow Re-marriage Association by one friend of plaintiff and by another who informed defendant he had written his attack at plaintiff’s instigation, plaintiff starting a rival paper to defendant's and, constant opposition between plaintiff and defendant in the Municipal Council and on Municipal sub-committess—the effect is to leave in my mind no doubt that when defendant entered upon his enquiries in the stone-throwing affair in July 1889 he had a distinct personal feeling against the plaintiff though nothing approaching the bitter enmity which now exists between them. 28. But it by no means follows defendant's statements, on which damages are asked under this issue were maliciously made. If defendant’s statements were exepressions of his honest belief that plaintiff instigated the stonepelting, elicited from him in the course of his enquiries authorised by the persons concerned, and made by him in the interest of those persons from a sense of duty to them and to the public (for a long continued offence such as that stone throwing on Ramabrahmam's house was undoubt
