New Orleans Republican., 1873-06-20
COURT ITEMS.

4
Court but impanel a jury in the Duffy
and Schonhausen case. They are charged
with forging and uttering check purpor1-
ing to be signed by }. }. Daily.
In the Fourth District Court long strides
were made toward speedy conclusion of
the libel case. The paper on which the
bills Of exception o! the defendants coun-
sci will be written viii. probably amount to
enough to cover Lafayette square.
Colonel Hill was pU: 90 the stand and
testified that all articles had 30 be sub
mitted to Colonel Rhett before they were
published. Some of the directors wrote ar
,icles. He did not see this article till the
suit was commenced. The board of direc-
tors had taken no action because the suit
was commenced so sooa. In the matter of
the attacks on the lottery the ventilation
was ordered by the OLD board. The new
board elected in June. 1872. thought the
editor ought not to be restricted in his dis
cretion. and rescinded the resolution Au
gust %. 1872. The old board was not as
harmonious as the new board. Mr.. bennett
was dismissed under a resolution of Septem-
Der 9. 1872. in consequence of an altera.
ton in a telegram from Monroe.
| During Mr.. Hills examination he at.
tempted to enter into an explanation before
answering. The couV: corrected him, and
Oh his persisting informed him he would be
| punished unless he behaved himself. The
question was then answered. A juryman
asked If an article written by him was sent
| to the Picayunc i: would be published. and
was told If the editor approved of it it
would be published.
| A dispute having arisen on the meaning
| of Colonel Rhett's statement that the Libel.
GUS article was submitted to no one. he was
recalled. He explained the misunderstand-
ing by saying he read the article carefully
| before it was sent up. Judge Cooley asked
| if witness knew who wrote it. Colonel
Rhe,t said he did. but declined to say who.
On being pressed, the court protected the
| witness. and decided he was not compelled
| to answer.
| The defense then offered the report Of
| the Senate committee. with the object to
show. under the general issue. that the
committee had found the same state of
facts that the article represented. Objected
to and ruled out.
| General Longstreec was then put on the
stand. Mr.. Ogden said he desired to prove
by this witness. under tho general issue.
that the Lynch board had no returns. The
court said that matter had been excluded.
Mr.. Ogden suggested that it had been ex-
l ~ IL.
the pleadings intact and before the de-
PENDANTS had been restricted to proof under
| the general issue. He desired to offer it
again at this stage. Objected to and ruled
| out.
After consultation the defense rested.
and a recess Of half an hour was taken
| Mr.. Rice opened tor the plaintiff He
stated that his argument would not be as
interesting as some that would follow. The
ground of suit was q certain article pub
lshed in the Pieoy'n'e of February 2:'. 1873,
charging the plaintiff with committing GER
tain erin ina! acts and performing certain
duties for reward. He then read the arti.
| Gle. the answer of the defendant is con.
tined to q general denial. The word per.
| jury means a crime. as larceny or murder
does. The defense were at liberty t. prove
the truth of the charge. He then read the
Revised Statutes on the subject. He de-
fined the difference between the criminal
| prosecution as conducted b. the State. and
| the civil right of the injured party to dam
! ages. He defined libel. and the difference
between slander and libel. Abbott's Digest
| says that any words tending to degrade are
| HoelOus. II a person accuses another of a
! crime. he has accused him Of thing
| which is actionabe in itself. The
| only pleas are truth or Justification. Malice
| is inferred. Tresca vs.. Maddox. ii An. 200;
King vs.. Ballard. 10 An. 500. If the de-
fendant had not accused the plaintiff Of
perjury, then his case falls. If they had,
then he was entitled to verdict. On the
defense of Justification he quoted from
Townsend on Libel and Slander, 80. 8.
Where the charge is perjury, the plea must
allege that the plaintiff testified to what
was untrue. The same proof is required as
would be necessary to convict. Townsend.
'32, 6l3-4; - WeEd.. los. 30.; IL Vesey. !56
The law Of rumor as defense was quoted
from Kendrlck vs. Kemp. N. S. SOL: State
VS.. Bateman. IL An. 10: Starkie. :i9.
Whether the defendant believed the charge
or not was no defense. Townsend. ll3. 2l6.
The proprietor of a paper is responsible
fox all that appears in hiseolumns. Perrett
vs.. Weed, % An. The liberty of speech or
of the press has nothing to do with the sub.
ject. They are not endangered by the pun
ishment Of ibelOus publications. The lib
erty Of speech and the liberty of the press
DO not authorize malicious and injurious
defamation. There can be no right in print
ers. any more than in other persons. to do
wrong. Story. j.. in Dexter Va. Spear.
Mass. ll5 The fact that the editor did
no: know Judge Hawkins was an aggrava-
ton and no: palliation. In an action for
slander malice need not be expressly proved.
Caucho:x vs.. Dupuy.t3 La. goo On the
question of responsibility of the director. Of
a corporation. the law was quoted from
Minor vs. Mechanics Bank. Pet. i6;
Morse on Banks and Banking: Price Va.
M!iaudon. ; La. so: PontchagtrAln Rail
road Va. Pauldins, II La. IL.
Judge Dibble followed on the same side.
He stated to the jury that it was not the
intention or purpose Of the plaintiff to ex
ciude any matter which was pertinent to
the case. He was not afraid of the fullest
inves.ig alton. The object was to keep mat
ters out which had nothing to do with the
gu .s.on for the iury. The plant If says