Opinion
File No. 57043
In a libel action wherein the complaint stated that a copy of the defamatory matters would be filed in court on the return day of the action, and such copy was not so filed, the plaintiff was required to make his complaint more specific by setting forth the article of which the plaintiff complained, or, if he did not complain of the whole article, that portion of the article of which he did complain. The plaintiff was required to make the complaint more specific in other particulars, notwithstanding it appeared that the defendant was seeking to ascertain the plaintiff's evidence and the identity of his witnesses, where the facts sought were within the exclusive knowledge of the plaintiff and were necessary for the defendant's preparation for trial, and the revelation of them would work no harm to the plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM FILED DECEMBER 12, 1939.
Goldstein Bracken, of New Haven, for the Plaintiff.
Cornelius J. Danaher, of Meriden, for the Defendant.
Memorandum of decision on motion for more specific statement.
The motion for more specific statement is granted as to all of the four paragraphs of such motion.
In paragraph 5 of the complaint the plaintiff alleges that a copy of the defamatory matters would be filed in this court on the return day of the action. Such has not been done. The portion of the article of which the plaintiff complains if he does not complain of the whole article, should be specifically set forth, so that whether on its face it is libel may be determined as a question of law or so that the defendant may meet the claim by answer and upon the trial.