New Orleans Republican., 1873-03-12

pursuits ruined. In such case It Is not
incumbent upon the party assailed by fl-se-
hood and defamation 10 show mailce a9diA7-
himself on the part OF the publsnef' nor
- prove that he has received ~ ~
bv the publication. The law !hp.!e-
malice in the publisher from the act o'
publishing the libel: not malice ~ Cnt
sense OF spite antipathy or hatre. 'oN@Iu
the par.v assailcd, but tie eElI lslos-.''I-'
the .aul,ts rftinius which induced ElA1 @
toniy reckleseiv or ncgh-eLILy' IL
gard Of the rights OF others 70 "i| :.
sIandcver in his work OF defamation ~ ILo
py.rp. enginerv of the pubic press "L1iloI
or printed sIanCer beng justly 'oA7!"'f'll-
more pernicicus than tha, uttered ~ "oih-
only. Neither does the law rega!! the ~
flry inflicted - being repaired "E ne SID
seGTcnt reJractIor or apology "i ti-S l'""-
Usher. however promptly !. my ot i.ld'''
for il l. .ilife reasonable - ME! ma. many
NAV have rea,. the .Iuc. "L" never sew OF
heard OF it, .iaaVcUal. NO' Is III" :t'cpIlc-
:n- rt a newspaper "E"ne:ate.. rom I'-2oh-
.inili+y j.catlse he liDelUu- matter appear
jrg in b.. paper was inserted without lis
hE0wieLyc OF appreciation. or even against
hi. wishes He - responsible III damages
for til. acts OF his agents and employees.
To the party affected by the slaLGcr the in
!ury j. The sane. whether the rGall"atlon
was made with or without the consent OF
the proprietor. The agent or eInploye may
be an irresponsible person. In the case OF
Dole ys. LYON. ~ Johns0n's Reports, Chan
.elor Kent said: "Eu.lividuai character
must ue projected Or social happ.-
ness and domestic peace are destroyed.
Ii IS not sutlicen: that he printer by nam
ing the author. gives tAc party greVed an
action against MIN. 1h!s reason OF the
rule is mentioned II Lord Northampton
case and repeated by Lord Kenyon. But
this remedy may afford 10 consolation ana
10 relief TO the injured party. The author
may be some vagrdr: IndlVldEai VINO may
easily eiude process: and if found. he may
be without property 20 vemunerate in dam
ages. 1t would be no check on !Ibelou.
printer who can spread the calumuy with
ease and with rapidity throughout the com
munty. The calumny of the author would
fall harlnlessly to the ground without the
aid OF the printer. The injury is inflicted
by the press. which, like other powerful
engines, is mighty for mischief as well as
for geod."
In the case of Huff vs.. Bennett, +: San
ford's. I30 it was urged on the part OF the
defendant admitted to be the publisher Of
the Uerud, who was sued for publication
of several alleged libes, that there was no
evidence that he had actual personal
knowledge of the publication OF the article
in question. The court said: This was an
immaterial point. The defendant, as the
proprietor of the paper, was reponsible for
whatever appeared in it's columns; and 1t
was unnecessary TO show that he knew Of the
publication or authorized it. This poin. IS
we'll eSta ablished.'
''In an action for libel'against the printer
of a newspaper, il is not justification that
the publication was made at the instance OF
a person whose name was given at the
tme and who paid for it in the usual
course Of business, though it may go in
mitigation Of damages" , Starke, .. III,
note; 3 Yates. 2IS. :! Wash, PIG; BouHy.
20; 3 An. 60.
The case OF Tresca VS.. Maddox, II An, 2G6.
was an action against the proprietor OF =
newspaper for damages for libel. One Of
the employees of the defendant, at that time
proprietor OF the Crescent newspaper, and,
as it seems, without the knowledge Cf t.e
proprietor. Published an exaggerated and
intiammatOry article in which the plaintiff
was called pirate. The answer admitted
that the charge was false: that the defend
ant had been Misled by certain police re-
ports: that instantly on discovery OF the
error ne had Ietrac,ed Il publicly in his
newspaper. with which plaintiff had eX-
pressed himself satisfied. The defendant
denied that there was malice in the act Of
publishing the statement. The jury awarded
a verdict in favor Of the plaintiff tor the
sum of $1,000, which was affirmed on appeal.
This court said in that case: mo express
malice was proved. Indeed. i may be as.
sunleG that the defendant when ne made
the publication. did not Know who Captain
Tresca was. and therefore could have had
no specla! malice against him. But II ac-
tions OF this character malice is often i'm
piled. AZ common law. il the words spoken
or published are actionable las if they III.
port an accusat on 1i an !nClc'ab!e o:-
tence'. manc!Ous intent is an inference OF
the law. and therefore needs no proof.
Greehleaf Ev.. section IlS. in this case
malice does not mean spite agalns. the
individual, but 1elus 0ttiHt1tS. a wantOu
disposition. grossly negligent of the ,ight.
of others. We think the jury might prop.
erly have inferred such malice under the
circumstances Of the case. ; L.. los. The
reParation made by !ecanting the charges
the day after they were made was proper
to be considered by thc jury IN estimating
the amount Of damages but cOul. not.
the appellant contends. eXOneTate him en-.
tirely. The injury had been done. ;or
SCD}.t cUjSS1 li,RytinH gerCgdt. The Sian
der circulated by one issue OF the paper
could not 1e wholly obliterated by the re.
cantation IL another. All who saw .he
first may not have seen the last. And il is
difficult wholly 20 restore a reputation
thus positively and publicly ac.
cused Of the highest crimes known 20
the law. 1t .s urged ;ha. the
plaintiff is tebarreG from a recovery by the
expression OF hi. satisfaction at the apOl-
ogy and retracJ!On published by Che defend.
ant. 4 bargain o. this kind could be en-
forced under our law. as IL is competent
for the injured party 20 release lis claim
tor damages Buc II must appear that he
has released II. or expressly agreed 20
waive his action tOv .Le consideration
named"
In regard 20 malice .he ruic ;s :ha. j.
need no: be expressly proved. Uut viii ne
implied il the charge be false. Malice j.
an !mputat.on of law from the false and in
.urioUs nature of the charge. and differs
from actual malice or i'll VIII toward the
individual, frequently given IN evidence to
enhance the Gamsges.' ! Wendell.
tD the question OF damages recoverable
in cases OF tbel. the doctrine is wei. settled
that actions of slande. may be maintained
without proving damages, and the party
may recover. This doctrine was Tsc0g-
nIEed 10y this court after . very full argu.
meDt IL the well considered case o: Miller
Vs.. ilo'stein. ~ l.. r.. oS3. Il was there
determined that the courts OF Louisiana
are not bound by the technical and
artificial rule. OF the common law in
SANDER. h.t w1sre our law is silent
We may resort 10 4 foreign system for a
rule corsonan' ~ reason and equity. IL
that case u was announced that ;he court
was not prepared /" adopt the common IL
dlStln''on between words act.oEaolc IN
themselves and words which are no. So:
and :" say plaintiff is not entitled 70 re
cover II an acton oi .lander unless charge.
with an lncl"ta..e "tt.nse. withau: proof rf
sI"tla! damages And ACCORDINGLY i, .U--
tame" tnat part -: the charge gwen 20 the
rltT T.,tt l