that all averments of fraud must be stated with

particularity. In re Estate of Sullivan, 506 P.2d 813, 1973 Wyo. LEXIS 141 (Wyo. 1973). Fraud not imputed. — Fraud will not be imputed to any party when the facts and cir- cumstances out of which it is supposed to arise are consistent with honesty and purity of inten- tion. Reed v. Owen, 523 P.2d 869, 1974 Wyo. LEXIS 215 (Wyo. 1974). Plaintiff not required to specifically plead occurrence of conditions precedent. — The purpose of this rule is to prevent dis- missals of meritorious cases if the plaintiff fails specifically to plead the occurrence of condi- tions precedent. Johnson v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 608 P.2d 1299, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 254 (Wyo. 1980). While it may be better practice to use the exact wording of the rules in pleadings, a pleader is not required to state “that all condi- tions precedent have been performed or have occurred” to comply with the requirements of this rule. Johnson v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 608 P.2d 1299, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 254 (Wyo. 1980). Lack of specific date. — Where the statu- tory definition of the offense does not require a specific date, such a date need not be given in the information. Stewart v. State, 724 P.2d 439, 1986 Wyo. LEXIS 605 (Wyo. 1986). Special damage demand need not be definite. — There is no requirement that a personal injury and wrongful death complaint must state a dollar amount as alleged special damages or demand special damages in a sum certain as judgment. Melehes v. Wilson, 774 P.2d 573, 1989 Wyo. LEXIS 114 (Wyo. 1989), reh’g denied, 1989 Wyo. LEXIS 150 (Wyo. June 12, 1989). Whether plaintiffs are real parties in interest should be submitted as affirma- tive defense, pursuant to Rules 9 and 17, and particularly so considering the rights of ratifi- cation, joinder or substitution provided in Rule 17, and should not be presented for the first