The forM of 'statement should be accord ing to the established forms ; Co. Litt. 303; 6 East 351; 8 Co. 48 b. This is to be con sidered as, in general, merely a rule of cau tion, though it is said the courts disapprove a departure from the well-established forms of pleading; 1 Chitty, Pl. 212. In most of the states, and in England since 1852, many radical changes have been introduced into the law of pleading : still, it is apprehended that a reasonable' regard to the old forms will be profitable, although' the names of things may be changed. See 3 Sharsw. Bla. Com. 301, n.; Sampson v. Shaeffer, 3 Cal. 196; Cooper v. Benson, 28 Miss. 766; Hill v. Barrett, 14 B. Moor. (Ky.) 83. In general, it may be said that the facts should be stat ed logically, in their natural order, with cer tainty, that is, clearly and distinctly, so that the party who is to answer, the court, and the jury may readily understand what is meant; 2 B. & P. 267 ; Co. Litt. 303; Hunt v. Crane, 33 Miss. 669, 69 Am. Dec. 381; with precision; People v. Dunlap, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 437; and with brevity ; Smith v. It. Co., 36 N. H. 458 ; 1 Chitty, Pl. 212. The facts stated must not be insensible or repug nant ; 7 Co. 25; Sherwood v. Stevenson, 25 Com. 431; nor ambiguous or doubtful in meaning ; 5 Maule & S. 38 ; nor argumenta tive; Co, Litt. 303; Hurst v. Purvis, 5 Blackf. (lnd.) 557; nor by way of recital ; Ld. Raym. 1413; and should be stated according to their legal effect and operation; Steph. Pl. And. ed. 366; Johnson v. Carter, 16 Mass. 443.
The time within which pleas must be filed is a matter of local regulation, depending upon the court in which the action is brought. The order of pleading different matters is of importance as affOting the defendant, who may oppose the plaintiff's suit in various ways. The order is as follows: First, to the jurisdiction of the court. Second, to the disability, etc., of the per n: first, of the plaintiff ; second, of the defendant.
Third, to the count or declaration.
Fourth, to the writ: first, to the form of the matter apparent on the face of it, secondly, matters dehors ; second, to the action of the writ.
Fifth, to the action itself in bar.
This is said to be the natural order of pleading, because each subsequent plea ad mits that there is no foundation for the former; Shaw v. Usher, 41 Me. 102; Cole v. Ackerman, 7 Gray (Mass.) 38; Gardner v. James, 5 R. I. 235; Symons v. Northern, 49 N. C. 241; Alliston v. Lindsey, 12 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 656. An exception exists where matter is pleaded puis darrein continuance; see PLEA; and where the subject-matter is one over which the court has no jurisdiction, a failure to plead to the puis cannot confer jurisdiction ; Wright v. Guy, 10 S. & R. (Pa.)
229 ; Horton v. Wheeler, 17 Tex. 52.
The science of pleading, as it existed at common law, has been much modified by statutory changes; but, under whatever names it is done,—whether under rules of court, or of the legislative power, by the parties, the court, or the jury,—it is evident that, in the nature of things, the end of pleading must be attained, namely, the pro duction of one or more points of issue, where a single fact is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. By pleading at the common law, this was doue by the par ties ; in the civil law, by the court. ° In England, pleadings in actions are now governed by the provisions of the Judicature Act, ord. xix., which made a number of changes in the old common-law methods.
See JUDICATURE ACTS.
Up to judgment pleadings are construed most strongly against the pleader, and un known, unrecited facts are not assumed in his favor ; Hughes v. Murdock, 45 La. Ann. 935, 13 South. 182. See Loehr v. Murphy, 45 Mo. App. 519; Bogenschutz v. Smith, 84 Ky. 330, 1 S. W. 578.
But it is said that they must be construed reasonably, and not with such strictness as to refuse to adopt the natural construction because a particular fact might have been more distinctly alleged, although its ex istence is reasonably to be presumed from the averments; Lockhart v. Leeds, 195 U. S. 427, 25 Sup. Ct. 76, 49 L. Ed. 263.
"It would be subversive of all sound prac tice, and tend largely to defeat the ends of justice, if the court should refuse to accept a fact as settled which is distinctly alleged in the bill and admitted in the answer ;" Jones v. Morehead, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 165, 17 L. Ed. 662.
Pleadings are not to be treated as allega tions of the truth of the facts stated for all purposes, but only for that case; Parke, B. in 2 Exch. 665.
"Technical forms of pleading in equity are abolished" by the new equity rules of the supreme court (rule 18) unless "otherwise provided by statute or by the rules them selves." See 226 U. S. 649, 33 Sup. Ct. xix.
In Criminal Practice the rules of pleading are the same as in civil practice. There is, however, less liberty of amendment of the indictment. The order of the defendant's pleading is as follows : First, to the juris diction ; second, in abatement ; third, special pleas in bar : as, autrefois acquit, autrefois attaint, autrefois convict, pardon ; fourth, the general issue.