23 APRIL 1910, Page 20

THE PUNCH-BOWL CASE.

[To THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR.'•, SIR,—Your story in last week's issue of the defences made by a man accused of stealing a kettle reminds me that in my young days—more than fifty years ago now, alas !—I was a pupil in the chambers of a special pleader, and to impress upon my mind that pleas might be utterly inconsistent with each other I was told of the then well-known punch-bowl ease, where a man had lent another a punch-bowl which when returned was found to be cracked, and the owner sued the borrower for damages. The defendant pleaded three pleas :- (1) The bowl was not cracked when he returned it. (2) That it was cracked when be received it. (3) That he never had it at all.

This appears to be another version of the same story.—I