JUDGMENT Cunliffe, J. - In this action the Plaintiff Baba Gurdit Singh complains of an article published in the "Stateman" newspaper under date of the 9th July, 1933. He sued the Statesman, Ltd., William Arthur Moore, the editor of the "Statesman," and Maurice Shaw Scurrah, the printer and the publisher of the newspaper in question. The suit that he brings is one for constructive defamation of character. His name is not actually mentioned in the article, but he maintains that by its form and material it did in fact, and must inevitably, identify him with what was said therein and would lower him in the estimation of his friends and acquaintances and bring him into ridicule and contempt. The plaint sets out that Baba Gurdit Singh is a respected leader and a public man amongst Indians, especially among the Sikh Community, and that at the time of publication he held a position as a leader and public man all over India. 2. By paragraph 2 of the plaint he sets out that in the year 1914 he organised a scheme to emigrate Sikhs to Canada. He was the leader of a party of these emigrants who proceeded to the Pacific Slope in a Japanese vessel called the "Kamagata Maru." He describes the fortunes of the Kamagata Maru and the people on board her in circumstances to which I shall have to refer in detail later. He sets out that at the end of their voyage they returned to Calcutta, and that when they arrived in the Hooghly, the police took possession of the vessel and various goods that belonged to them. 3. He next refers to a previous suit that he launched against the Secretary of State. That was for a return of certain documents and goods said to be his property which were on board this vessel, the Kamagata Maru. He shows that the suit was dismissed and that at the time the plaint was put on the file the rejected suit was under appeal. He shows also that the proceedings in the suit were fully reported in the Statesman newspaper; and then he comes to the alleged offending article. 4. He shows that the suit was dismissed and that at the time the plaint was put on the file the rejected suit was under appeal. He shows also that the proceedings in the suit were fully reported in the Statesman newspaper; and then he comes to the alleged offending article. 4. In the seventh paragraph of his plaint he refers to the article in this fashion:-- That on or about the 9th July, 1933, the Defendants falsely and maliciously printed and published in their said newspaper of the Plaintiff and of his said scheme of immigration to Canada by the said steamship Kamagata Maru the following words:-- THE GHADR PARTY. Our Simla representative has sent us a remarkably interesting message regarding the present condition and activities of what is known as the Ghadr party in California. Ghadr means 'mutiny.' So short are memories that people seem to have for gotten the startling and almost unbelievable incidents, which caused the party to be recognised as one of the most dangerous which has appeared in India since 1857. Early in 1914, some months before the War broke out and before anybody had any conception that a War was threatened, a large party of Sikhs, three to four hundred in number, chartered a special ship to take them to Yancouver. Where the money was obtained from, nobody knows. These men, interviewed before they sailed, said in an oriental way that their intention was to make money in Canada, where money was easily obtained. Whereas in the Punjab everybody kept his fist tightly closed upon money, in Canada men kept the palms of their hands open. Told that the immigration laws in Canada were very severe and that they might not be permitted to land, they smiled and said they had friends in Canada who would see them in all right. The ship, the Kamagata Maru, sailed in due course and arrived at Vanoouver. The passengers were not allowed to land. In a vain attempt to break the resolution of the authorities the vessel remained at anchor for several weeks, the Sikhs growing more and more bitter every day, finally, the Kamagata Maru, after being permitted to take in water and provisions, was turned round and began its return voyage to Calcutta. The passengers were not allowed to land. In a vain attempt to break the resolution of the authorities the vessel remained at anchor for several weeks, the Sikhs growing more and more bitter every day, finally, the Kamagata Maru, after being permitted to take in water and provisions, was turned round and began its return voyage to Calcutta. On the way it called at several Japanese ports, and it was then that German agents got into touch with the Sikhs, provided them with money and what is more with arms, Manzer pistols. It became known to the authorities in India before the ship entered the Hooghly that the Sikhs were in a dangerous temper, and the arrangement was made that they should be landed at Budge-Budge and taken up to the Punjab by special train. When the Sikhs were informed of this decision they said they would not have it. It was their intention, they said, to march in a party up to Calcutta. To see that they did obey orders a large body of police, including armed sergeants and constables were sent down to Budge-Budge. The Sikhs were obstinate from the very first, The Customs people had examined the ship and reported nothing dutiable, unaware that each man had a pistol concealed in his clothing. The police therefore began in an open way to edge the men towards the train Suddenly the sikhs pulled out their pistols and opened fire. Then leaving several dead and wounded police on the ground they retired to the edge of the jungle. Word was immediately sent to Calcutta. A company of Middlesex Regiment then in the Fort was rushed to Budge-Budge and found the police in position waiting for re-inforcements. The Sikhs were firing occasional shots. The Mauzers they had were of the type in which the butt fits so into the holster that the weapon can be converted into a carbine. With the arrival of the regulars a real battle began. For a time the firing was very heavy and continuous, but finally just before the military and police made their final rush the Sikh line broke and dispersed into the jungle. The police and the soldiers had several killed and wounded. Amongst the killed was Sergent-Major Eastwood, a brave and gallant soldier with many medals. For a time the firing was very heavy and continuous, but finally just before the military and police made their final rush the Sikh line broke and dispersed into the jungle. The police and the soldiers had several killed and wounded. Amongst the killed was Sergent-Major Eastwood, a brave and gallant soldier with many medals. The exact number of Sikhs killed is not known, but 37 wounded were taken into hospital in Calcutta. The Calcutta authorities were then faced with the problem of how to deal with the several hundred Sikhs known to be at large in the jungle--all desparate men and armed. For several days all roads leading into Calcutta were watched, as also was the river, but we believe we are right in saying that not a single Sikh was caught. All disappeared in a wonderful way. Perhaps the authorities did not want them caught, for the 37 wounded when discharged from hospital were sent to their homes and no action was taken against them. It is quite possible that the nucleus of the Ghadr party had already been formed either in the States or in Canada before this affair of the Kamagata Maru. In any case the party was certainly in being when the ship was turned back from Vancouver, Many of the men who escaped from Budge-Budge were later identified in the Punjab, but, as in Bengal, no special action was taken against them, and the majority are now leading respectable and steady lives. Some, indeed, are whole-hearted supporters of the Government, and it has been stated that others joined up during the war and went off to fight the Turks in Mesopotamia. The war, too caused the battle at Badge-Badge to be forgotten though that battle was a much more serious affair than that which took place in the same locality when Olive came up from Madras. But though we hear little of a Ghadr party in the Punjab to-day, there is undoutedly an intensely active one in California. But there the indications seem to be that the party, while still preserving the name, is devoting itself rather to gangster methods of enriching itself than to making plans for an organised rising in India. The members are described as terrorists and their victims are people of their own race. But there the indications seem to be that the party, while still preserving the name, is devoting itself rather to gangster methods of enriching itself than to making plans for an organised rising in India. The members are described as terrorists and their victims are people of their own race. Judging by the story our representative at Simla has to tell and from facts that we have obtained elsewhere, the party is at the present moment very active, but a few more murders and the attention of the police will be very much attracted towards them. The American people have a large tolerance towards evil-doers. It is part of the easy life of the country. Putting away people, taking them for riders, shooting them, are accepted as ordinary incidents. But sometimes the gang will go too far. There is a demand for a round-up, and when there is a round-up, it is very systematic and thorough, The average patrol man in the United States has more power over an individual than a Deputy Commissioner in India. He uses his truncheon when policemen in other countries are expected to use soft words, and he is taught to be quicker on the draw than any gangster. If the excesses of the Ghadr party in the United States should lead to a general round-up, it is highly probable that the party will be broken up for ever. Few will regret the disappearance. 5. In paragraph 8 of the plaint the Plaintiff sets out the innuendo which he maintains is inevitable from this article. He says that the Defendants meant and were understood to mean that the Plaintiff was a criminal and a smuggler and possessor of arms and ammunition, and that he was in league with the then enemies of His Majesty the King-Emperor; that the scheme for the immigration of Sikhs to Canada was of a mutinous and revolutionary character, and that he was a party to the revolutionary conspiracy, and that he committed various acts of violence and crime. 6. He finally asks the Court to award him damages to the amount of Rs. 50,000. 7. The answer to this plaint in the written statement takes this form. The facts in the paragraphs 1 to 6 which I have mentioned are put in issue generally. The Defendants admit that the article was printed and published. 6. He finally asks the Court to award him damages to the amount of Rs. 50,000. 7. The answer to this plaint in the written statement takes this form. The facts in the paragraphs 1 to 6 which I have mentioned are put in issue generally. The Defendants admit that the article was printed and published. They deny that the words in question were published with malice. They deny that the words were published with reference to the Plaintiff at all. They deny the innuendo, and contend that none of the meanings set out could be a natural on reasonable or necessary interpretation of the words used. They further place reliance upon a plea which has come to be known in actions for defamation as the "rolled up" plea, a plea which has been the subject of much discussion in the text books and also in certain decisions in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The plea in question takes the form: In so far as the words consist of allegations of fact, they are in their natural and ordinary meaning true in substance and in fact. In so far as such words consist of expressions of opinion, they are fair comments made in good faith and without malice upon such facts. 8. Upon these two pleadings issues were framed. The first issue need not detain me long. It is a question of whether the facts in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the plaint are true or not. The second issue is of very great importance to the Plaintiff. It is the issue of identification. It also contains a question to the Court as to whether, in the alternative, if the article does refer to him, it is defamatory of him in the sense of the innuendo on which he relies. The next issue deals with the "rolled up" plea and the question of fair comment. There is another issue on the question of malice, and there is the usual issue with regard to damages. 9. Before I look into the evidence in this case I max as well deal with the issues, as they appeared at the end of the case for the Defendants. The position was, that two of the issues raised by the defence have disappeared. Firstly, the issue of malice, that was abandoned, and I think rightly, as it never had much standing in law. The position was, that two of the issues raised by the defence have disappeared. Firstly, the issue of malice, that was abandoned, and I think rightly, as it never had much standing in law. It was laid down by the House of Lords in Hulton v. Jones [1910] A. C. 20 (H. L.) (1909), that in cases of defamation of this kind the question of malice does not arise. The Court there even went so far as to say that the question of intention, quite apart from malice, did not arise either, and I think it is perfectly correct to say that, as far as defamation cases in general are concerned, consideration of malice in law is only necessary when the plea of privilege is raised. Here, no plea of privilege has been raised. 10. The next point we come to on the issues is the defence of fair comment. [In his final address, Counsel for the defence, abandoned the plea of fair comment.--Reporter.] * * * * * 11. The matter then stands in this way. I am now only concerned with the plea of identity, on the one hand the Plaintiff saying that this article referred to him among others, and on the other hand the Defendants saying that no reasonable person on reading the article would possibly think it referred to Baba Gurdit Singh. 12. The remaining issue that I have to determine is,--if I am satisfied that reasonable persons, acquaintances of the Plaintiff or people with a knowledge of his activities in public life, would inevitably connect this article with him, then to what damages, if any, is he entitled. [His Lordship then proceeded to discuss the evidence, in course of which he stated, "But a further piece of evidence was brought out in Court, not from any of the Plaintiff's witnesses, but from one of the two witnesses called for the Defendants, which is of very great importance, in my opinion, to the Plaintiff's case. It is this, that three reports were published in the Statesman before the offending article in relation to the action brought against the Secretary of State by the Plaintiff. That is the Editor's evidence. The headlines of these reports are respectively as follows : 'Kamagata Maru Search Echo'--that is first one; 'Kamagata Maru Search Echo'--that is the second one; and 'Gurdit Singh's suit dismissed'--that is the third headline. That is the Editor's evidence. The headlines of these reports are respectively as follows : 'Kamagata Maru Search Echo'--that is first one; 'Kamagata Maru Search Echo'--that is the second one; and 'Gurdit Singh's suit dismissed'--that is the third headline. The Plaintiff very strongly relies on the publication of these reports to support his point that when persons who knew him read the article in suit, they would have their memory jogged back to these reports and the headlines containing the words 'Kamagata Maru' and 'Gurdit Singh'"--and concluded.] 13. Dealing with the issue of identity at once, I have come to the conclusion that, because of the fully published report of the case of Gurdit Singh v. The Secretary of State Suit No. 1125 of 1925: Buckland, J., Dated 1-12-32 which was tried earlier in the year before Mr. Justice Buckland and the headlines to which I have already referred, the publication of the article, together with the publication of these reports, would bring to the notice of a body of acquaintances of the Plaintiff the inevitable connection that he had with the Kamagata Maru and the Budge-Budge episode. 14. The law with regard to constructive defamation was dealt with in an old Irish case which went as far as the House of Lords, by the name of Joseph Le Fanu v. Joseph Malcolmson 1 H. L. C. 687 (1848). The headline there runs thus: Though defamatory matter may appear only to apply to a class of individual, yet if the descriptions in such matter are capable of being, by innuendo, shown to be directly applicable to any one individual of that class, an action may be maintained by such individual in respect of the publication of such matter. 15. Here, ostensibly, the description of what occurred applied to all the Sikhs upon the Kamagata Maru, and among the number was the Plaintiff who claims to have been the leading spirit in the enterprise and to have been known to the public as being the leading spirit. 16. The principle of Joseph Le Fanu v. Joseph Malcolmson 1 H. L. C. 687 (1848) was also adopted in a case heard in this High Court, Barrow v. Hem Chunder Lahiri I. L. R. 35 Cal. 495: s. c. 12 C. W. N. 490 (1908). 16. The principle of Joseph Le Fanu v. Joseph Malcolmson 1 H. L. C. 687 (1848) was also adopted in a case heard in this High Court, Barrow v. Hem Chunder Lahiri I. L. R. 35 Cal. 495: s. c. 12 C. W. N. 490 (1908). There the offending newspaper article referred generally to six police officers, bringing in charges of corruption against them, and it was decided that one of them who brought his action as a representative of the other five was entitled to sue. The case also of Hulton v. Jones [1910] A. C. 20 (H. L.) (1909) to which I have already made reference in another connection, deals in some way also with this principle. That was a case in which a certain newspaper in England wrote an article in which the leading figure was a person with a wholly fictitious name. The name adopted by the writer of the article was Artemus Jones, and the writer gave his evidence to show that this was a composite name, not intended to apply to anybody in particular, but evolved in his mind because he happened, before writing the article, to have had a conversation with an American gentleman in regard to the American author, Artemus Ward. The journalist therefore decided to call the figure in the article, Artemus Jones, not imagining that it could apply to a living person. Whereupon a Mr. Artemus Jones, a Barrister, complained that people thought that it applied to him. It was a fanciful article, so described by the Court of Appeal, which applied to the person who was mentioned as Artemus Jones in very damaging circumstances, and the jury gave the Plaintiff damages. Although there was a dissentient judgment in the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords upheld the direction which the Judge gave to the jury, in which he indicated that if they came to the conclusion that the Defendants by their negligence had caused reasonable persons to connect the Plaintiff's name with the libel, then they must find in the Plaintiff's favour. The case is really decided on a question of principle involving tortious negligence. The case is really decided on a question of principle involving tortious negligence. The analogy drawn by Lord Justice Farwell was a squib or lighted firebrand thrown into a crowd, not with the intention of hitting anybody in particular, but in fact injuring some one, and in such circumstances it would inevitably be held that the thrower of the squib would be responsible for the natural result of his own carelessness. In the House of Lords in Hulton v. Jones [1910] A. C. 20 (H. L.) (1909), Lord Shaw said:-- In the publication of a matter of a libellous character, that is, a matter which would be libellous, if applying to an actual person, the responsibility is as follows:-- In the first place there is the responsibility for the words used being taken to signify that which the readers would reasonably understand thereby. In the second place there is the responsibility of the names used being taken to signify those whom the readers would reasonably understand by those names. In the third place the same principle is applicable to persons not named but sufficiently indicated by designation or description. 17. It was argued here and I accept the argument, that the prominence given to the name of the steamship Kamagata Maru in the article would, to those who knew the Plaintiff, and the way he had been connected with the Kamagata Maru, have the effect of jogging their memories into remembrance of these reports in the Statesman of the former case against the Secretary of State. Although not actually named in what was written, it is argued that the Plaintiff here is sufficiently indicated by designation or description, because the reference to the Kamagata Maru and the description of the events at Budge-Budge, would turn the minds of certain readers to the Plaintiff inevitably, Having accepted this argument, the last point that I have to decide is, whether the Plaintiff in the circumstances; is entitled to any damages. 18. The way that the claim for damages is combated by the defence, as I understand it, is this. They say: " The Plaintiff is a convicted seditionist. Convicted seditionists have no reputation worth talking about. The writer of the article refers to his activities in connection with the Kamagata Maru. 18. The way that the claim for damages is combated by the defence, as I understand it, is this. They say: " The Plaintiff is a convicted seditionist. Convicted seditionists have no reputation worth talking about. The writer of the article refers to his activities in connection with the Kamagata Maru. We have proved that the people on the Kamagata Maru were persons who resist the police on the slightest opportunity, and the Plaintiff claims to have been their leader"--and it is argued that taking all the facts into consideration he cannot be entitled to any relief. In this connection I think I must hold myself quite unfettered by the manner in which the case has been conducted and the issues narrowed down. It is most necessary to consider all the proved facts. * * * * * 19. With regard to his convictions for sedition I do not know under what circumstances he was convicted. I should have welcomed the defence bringing before me the necessary judgments which were passed against him, if any were passed. I do not accept the argument that because a man has been convicted of sedition, he is therefore in sympathy with gangster methods and murder methods and secret associations with murder for their object. This to my mind, once I have accepted the argument with regard to identification, is the inevitable innuendo in relation to the article published in the Statesman. * * 20. I am not aware of what exact form of offence Gurdit Singh was guilty of, to get himself convicted. He might have been an extreme seditionist or only mildly seditious. 21. To sum up the Plaintiff's position and his attitude of mind, it appears to me to be this. Ever since the firing at Budge-Budge he has had in my view what the French call an "idee fixe" that he has been badly treated and persecuted by Government. I do not consider that he is the arch plotter or the arch villain that the Defendants try to make him out. I do not think there is any evidence whatever that he approved of modern gangster methods as employed in California or anywhere else. I think he is a peaceable, rather timorous man. I do not consider that he is the arch plotter or the arch villain that the Defendants try to make him out. I do not think there is any evidence whatever that he approved of modern gangster methods as employed in California or anywhere else. I think he is a peaceable, rather timorous man. His attitude is very similar to the attitude of a person who was known in England as Ex-Inspector Syme who was always causing trouble against Government by way of protests, because he thought he had a grievance concerning his dismissal from the police force. Gurdit Singh has now adopted in his extreme old age, the nonviolent, non-resisting methods of the Congress Working Committee. I do not consider that he has suffered any damage of a special nature. I dismiss all the evidence about the loss of the insurance agency at Lahore and his inability to get his daughter married and so on. That seems to me a fanciful idea of a brain which is labouring under extreme emotionalism. He is no doubt a highly excitable man. We could see that from the witness box but I also see no reason why people of this character should be described and connected with men, accounts of whom are given in this article. It is impossible also to disregard the fact that the article depends upon the language employed in the previous article which was directed from the correspondent in Simla. The words with which the offending article commences, "Our Simla representative has sent us a remarkable interesting message" would inevitably make some readers turn back to the files of the Statesman on the previous day or two days previous. And it must not be forgotten that in the article these words also occur: "Judging by the story our representative at Simla has to tell and from facts that we have obtained elsewhere." There is no evidence of any facts having been obtained elsewhere being brought before me. It is also of importance to remember that the following headlines occur in the former article from the Simla correspondent:-- Terrorism of Indian Secret Society. Many killed. Gadhr Party. Hindus living in fear. The Defendants have withdrawn their plea of fair comment; although as I stated at the commencement of my judgment they utilized their right to cross-examine the Plaintiff on the fair comment basis. Many killed. Gadhr Party. Hindus living in fear. The Defendants have withdrawn their plea of fair comment; although as I stated at the commencement of my judgment they utilized their right to cross-examine the Plaintiff on the fair comment basis. Apart from the defamatory nature of the artcile and its identification of the Plaintiff by innuendo, I consider they ought to pay for the luxury of this criticism. I award the Plaintiff in this case damages to the extent of Rs. 2,000 with costs.