ら - 8_O స్వి య చ రి ඵ් ము no doubt although it is not clear in what precise way it was to be done, that the upshot of what passed at this meeting was an expression of opinion, even by plaintiff's 4th witness Jogayya that plaintiff should clear his character. Plaintiff’s 4th witness says all he meant was that, as defendant was a respectable man and was accusing him, plaintiff should go to defendant and clear himself by explaining matters to him in their calmer moments. The 4th defenee witness says he understood plaintiff's 4th witness to mean that plaintiff should clear his character in Court when so many people were speaking against him. 24. Three weeks after that meeting the stone-pelting charge was filed in the Taluq Magistrate's Court ; and it was at sometime before then that defendant told his 27th defence witness P. Srinivasa Row of his conviction, from all the enquiries he had made, that the complainant's accusation, that plaintiff had instigated the stone-pelting, was well founded. 25. Plaintiff's theory is that the stone-pelting was the work of inmates of Ramabrahmam's house, that the real cause of it was the Forester's (54th defence witness's) improper relations with the females that that is why the boy wanted his wife sent away to live separately with him, and that if defendant had exercised ordinary care in his enquiries he must ‘have arrived at these conclusions. Plaintiff says that the boy told him a story implicating the Forester, and left the house in consequence of disputes about the Forester. Yet he admits that he never told the Forester this even when, on a subsequent occassion, a stone actually fell on the house while he was sitting there talking to the Forester. Plaintiff also admits that when defendant was accusing him to his very face at the High School and at the meeting at Viraswamy Naidu's and Venkatramayya's houses, he never mentioned a word about the boy's implication of the Forester or vouchsafed any information directed to show that stone-throwing was the
