మొు ద టి . ప . క ర ణ ము E_വ് الصفا work of inmates of the house. All these were occassions when plaintifi would naturally mention his present theory if he had any foundation for it; and he has only himself to blame if, with such opportunities, he left defendant possessed of only the materials on which defendant was expressing his belief against him. 26. The 4th defence witness speaks to one occassion when plaintiff offered to lend some of Chinnaswamy's boatmen to Ramabrahmam to stop the stone-pelting and to another occassion on which he was told that a cooly had seen one of Ramabrahmam's own girls throwing stones; but the witness says he did not believe this and did not communicate these matters to defendant, Plaintiff says his washerman servant was not employed by him till August 1889 but there is the sworn testimony of respectable witnesses, which I see no reason to doubt, to that servant having been sent for and present at the meeting at Viraswamy Naidu's (11th witness’s) house. What is further urged is that defendant could have believed that stones would be thrown from so public a place as Chinaswamy's boat office, that even if they were thrown from there the circumstances were too remote to justify the connection of plaintiff with the stone throwing and that if defendant had made any enquiry to find out why the respectable neighbours (thể 2nd, 3rd and 4th defence witnesses for instance) had not helped Sankaramma in her previous complaints to them, he would have discovered it was because the stone-throwing was being done by inmates of the house, Nothing of this sort was elicited from these witnesses in icross-examination. On the contrary we have the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 17th defence witnesses, though with less information than defendant and presumably acting bona fide, coming to the same conclusion as defendant and believing the plaintiff did instigate the stone-pelting. 27. Defendant has stated it as one of his reasons for his. similar belief, that he knew plaintiff not to be a man of good,
