You have the Lord Ordinary's distinct interlocutor, on pages 29 and 30 of this petition:--'Having considered the Condescendence of the pursuer, Answers for the defender,' and so on; 'Finds, in respect that it is not alleged that the diamonds on the back of the Diamond Beetle are real diamonds, or anything but shining spots, such as are found on other Diamond Beetles, which likewise occur, though in a smaller number, on a great number of other Beetles, somewhat different from the Beetle libelled, and similar to which there may be Beetles in Egypt, with shining spots on their backs, which may be termed Lice there, and may be different not only from the common Louse, but from the Louse mentioned by Moses as one of the plagues of Egypt, which is admitted to be a filthy troublesome Louse, even worse than the said Louse, which is clearly different from the Louse libelled.

But that the other Louse is the same with, or similar to, the said Beetle, which is also the same with the other Beetle; and although different from the said Beetle libelled, yet, as the said Beetle is similar to the other Beetle, and the said Louse to the other Louse libelled; and the other Louse to the other Beetle, which is the same with, or similar to, the Beetle which somewhat resembles the Beetle libelled; assoilzies the defender, and finds expenses due.' "Say away, my Lords.
"LORD MEADOWBANK .-- This is a very intricate and puzzling question, my Lord.

I have formed no decided opinion; but at present I am rather inclined to think the interlocutor is right, though not upon the _ratio_ assigned in it.

It appears to me that there are two points for consideration.

_First_, whether the words libelled amount to a _convicium_ against the Beetle; and _Secondly_, admitting the _convicium_, whether the pursuer is entitled to found upon it in this action.