A particular kind of a traverse which is only available to the plaintiff in his replication, is the replication de injuria.

The leading case on this subject is that known as Crogate's Case,21 the decision in which was as follows:

15 Cunyus vs. Guenther, 96 Ala., 564.

16 Ency. of Pleading and Practice, Vol. XVI, p. 546.

17 Finley vs. Woodruff, 8 Ark., 328. "A special traverse in its simplest form is not very unlike some of the Eastern forms of speech found in the Holy Scriptures: 'Thou shalt die and not live; He shall see for himself and not another.' " Day vs. Essex County Bank. 13 Vt., 97.

18 An inducement of a special traverse can properly be of no other nature than an indirect denial. Hubbard vs. Mutual Reserve Fund L. Asso., 80 Fed. Rep., 684.

19 State vs. Chrisman, 2 Ind., 130. Where the special traverse is upon an immaterial point it may be disregarded and in such a case the inducement may be traversed.

20 Ency. of Pleading and Practice, Vol. XVI, pp. 547-8.

21 8 Coke, 66.

"Edward Crogate brought an action of trespass against Robert Marys, for driving his cattle in Town-Barningham in Norfolk, etc. (a) The defendant pleaded, that a house and two acres in Barningham in the said county, were parcel of the manor of Thur-garton in the same county, and demised and demisable, etc., by copy, etc., in fee simple, etc., according to the custom of the manor, of which manor William late Bishop of Norwich was seised in fee in the right of his bishoprick, and prescribed to have common of pasture for him and his customary tenants of the said house and two acres of land in magna pecia pasturae vocat' Bassingham common, pro omnibus averiis, etc., omni tempore anni, and the said bishop at such a court, etc., granted the said house and two acres by copy to one William Marys, to him and his heirs, etc. And the plaintiff put his said cattle in the said great piece of pasture, wherefore the defendant, as servant to the said William, and by his commandment, molliter drove the said cattle out of the said place, where the said William had common in praed villam de Town-Barningham, adjoining to the said common of Bassingham, etc. The plaintiff replied, de injuria sua propria absque tali causa; upon which the defendant demurred in law. And it was objected on the plaintiff's part, that the said replication was good, because the defendant doth not claim any interest, but justified by force of commandment; to which de injuria sua propria absque tali causa, may be fitly applied: and this plea, De injuria sua propria, shall refer only to the commandment, and to no other part of the plea, and they cited (54) the books in 10 H. 3. 3. a. b. 9. 2. 16 H. 7. 3. a. b., etc., 3. H. 6. 35. a. 19 H. 6, 7. a. b., etc. But it was adjudged that the replication was insufficient. And in this case divers points were resolved. 1. That absque tali causa, doth refer to the whole plea, and not only to the commandment, for all maketh but one cause, and any of them, without the other, is no plea by itself. And, therefore, in false imprisonment, if the defendant justifies by a capias to the sheriff, and a warrant to him, there, de injuria sua propria generally is no good replication, for then the matter of record will be parcel of the cause (for all makes but one cause) and matter of record ought not to be put in issue to the common people, but in such case he may reply, de injuria sua propria, and traverse the warrant, which is matter in fact. But upon such a justification by force of any proceeding in the Admiral Court, hundred, or county, etc., or any other which is not a court of record, there de injuria sua propria generally is good for all is matter of fact, and all makes but one cause. And by these differences you will agree your books in 2 H. 7.

3. b. 5 H. 7. 6. a. b. 16 H. 7. 3. a. 21 H. 7. 22. a. (33). 19 H. 6. 7. a. b. 41 E. 3. 29. b. 17 E. 3. 44. 18 E. 3. 10. b. 2 E. 4. 6. b. 12 E. 4. 10. b. 4 H. 6. 16. 21 H. 6. 5. a. b. 13 R. 2. Issue 163.

"2. It was resolved, that when the defendant in his own right, or as a servant to another, claims any interest in the land, or any common, or rent going out of the land; or any way or passage upon the land, etc., there de injuria sua propria generally is no plea. But if the defendant justifies as servant, there de injuria sua propria in some of the said cases, with a traverse of the commandment, that being made material, is good; and so you will agree all your books, scil. 14 H.

4. 32. 33 H. 6. 5. 44 E. 3. 18. 2 H. 5. 1. 10 H. 6. 3. 9. 39 H. 6. 32. 9 E. 4. 22. 16 E. 4. 4. 21 E. 4. 6. 28 E.

3. 98. 28 H. 6. 9. 21 E. 3. 41. 22 Ass. 42. 44 E. 3. 13. 45 E. 3. 7. 24 E. 3. 72. 22 Ass. 85. 33 H. 6. 29. 42 E. 3. 2. For the general plea de injuria sua propria etc., is properly when the defendant's plea doth consist mere upon matter of excuse, and of no matter of interest whatsoever; et dicitur de injuria sua propria, etc., because the injury properly in this sense is to the person, or to the putation, as battery or imprisonment to the person; or scandal to the reputation; there, if the defendant excuse himself upon his own assault, or upon hue or cry levied, there, properly de injuria sua propria generally is a good plea, for there the defendant's plea consists only upon matter of excuse. 3. It was resolved, that when by the defendant's plea any authority or power is mediately or immediately derived from the plaintiff, there, although no interest be claimed, the plaintiff ought to answer it, and shall not reply generally de injuria sua propria. The same law of an authority given by the law: as to view waste, etc. Vide 12 E. 4. 10. 9 Ed. 4. 31. 21 Ed. 4. 4. 42 Edw. 3. 2. 16 H. 7. 3.

"Lastly, it was resolved, that in the case at bar, the issue would be full of multiplicity of matter, where an issue ought to be full and single: for parcel of the manor, demisable by copy, grant by copy, prescription of common, etc., and commandment, would be all parcel of the issue. And so, by the rule of the whole court, judgment was given against the plaintiff."