New Orleans Republican., 1873-03-12

and the DHBIc. : ne cara con .I.'.!!'h v. -
COIc.ed ia these words:
EF.. ORLEANS. February ~. :S'i".
We. ,ic Uud.I.ign"t. most respectfully
lay .r;ore the pub..: the following very
astonishing facts tina: took place last night
near the CarrOlltOn depot: While We were
on uur wav nom" from CarrOIiton :" Ne"
Orleans three uo!icc officers OF The above
place assaIIed r:-'w.th revOlVer5 pointed 70
AZ ~ deliver every cent We had *bpu, uS'
All the money thar we had was - ana Oh
delivering III. same they lett on " nat
ecurd. more horrible j. that these 80 called
officer. war. accompanied 0T his honor
.Judg. I.c..:, ,p.. :" Of CarrOltOn avenue.
JOHN BRIANT.
D. I. THOMPSON,
". B. SAVDRY,
II. Il. DELORD.
JAMES b. LUBH.
No ;i3 FTenchman street.
Tie arswe. 20 ;his is a general denial.
The defendant: admits that the instrument
30 signed was published as charged by
Dlaintitf but saws il was published as an adj
Vertscment, that il was received by one OF
the EMPLOYEES OF the establishment, at late
;our Of the night and during the absence
and without the knowledge of the prOprle-
tors OF the newspaper. He specially denies
that the said advertisement contains any Il
belous or slanderous charges, or imputa-
tiOns that could endamage plaintiff and he
specially denies ,hat such publication was
made with any malicious intent Oh the part
Of respondent.
The case was tried before a Jury which
rendered q verdict n favor OF the defend
ant.
The plaintiff has appealed.
A bill of exceptions taken by the plaintiff
10 the charge given to the jury by the Judge
in the trial al the case below presents for our
consideration several important questions
arising in this case. The plaintiff insists
shat the Judge erred in expounding to the
jury the law relating 10 the publication OF
libels, and thereby misled the jury and
caused Their verdict 10 be rendered for the
defendant.
Those portions Of the charge more espe-
ciailv excepted 20 are in the following
words:
'Buc this malice. whether express or i'm.
piled NAV be Tetuted. and it deyOlves upon
;he defendant to produce such proof. 1t Is
competent for him, as gong 10 show the
want of malice, 70 prove that tie article
was published without his knowledge that
il came'tO the paper through the ordinary
channels OF public news: tha. the parties
from whom j, was received were men about
whose credibiiitv there existed az She tiHc
no reasonable suspicion. These remarks
apply 10 10 the liability Of proprietors OF
NcWspapcrS tor publishing lbelOUs articles.
either as editorials or as anonymous com
muncations, bur take Il sound reason and
justice require ina: the rule OF responsible
" should be GIteveu; when the publication
complained OF IS nnr an editorial nor an
anonymous communication, but on the con
:rary. contains In" name and residence OF
she writer. In tl.i- .ast case, the same de-
gree Of liability can not with proprie:g be
PXacted from The Lr0prietor0! a newspaper.
II the same responsibility were enforced Ia
both cases, !; would. in my Judgment.
amount to complete stOppagc Of all such
Publishing enterprises. and believe It to
Je the true spin: o. our institutions rather
20 encourage than 20 prevent their exist
EnCe. | consIe: 'le true :ule 10 Dc That
malice VIII h, presumed II relation to
publications which are proven 70 be de.
flmatOry and false. whether these p!bl!ca-
tons are either editorials or anonymous
communications, Uut there exists no such
LEGAL presumption o! malice when the pub
Hcation is one il the nature of an adver.
tisemeut. the verify of which IS vouched
for 10y the signature and residence OF the
party asking It's publication. In such !.
case none OF the reasons which yindlcate
the rules presuming malice in the other eX-
lists: and IL would be senscless 20 apply
rules when the reasons tog their existence
have ceased. Therefore. you vii! first de-
eide as to the proper character OF the pub
ECatiOn complained Of. whether Il - an
editorial or an anonymous communication.
You will then consider whether the aver
ments thereof nave been proved 70 De de
tamatory and false. II you are satshed
that il is an edI .OTial or an anonymous com.
munication and that its averments are de
famatOry and false, then You may infer
that it was malcously published. and you
Will give a verdict IL favor OF the plalntlh
tor such damages as in your opinion Will
compensate the wrong committed and
serve rs pun!shmea; 20 the defendant 10:
his otfense.
In this ease YOU NAV take into consid
Grafton whether tie publication was made
with the knowledge Of the defendant. and
If by his servants. whether III so dong
they were acting within the scop. OF the
duties cOntided - them 90 serve as guides
an the discharge It those aUtIes. he IL.
itudant can not be held responsible Tor
VlnGictiVe damages i Il he shown that tue
came was made hy hIs employees against his
wishes and N violation -: his express or
siers. IL. On the contrary, y0H conclude
thai the publication was merely ar adver-
Sisemcnt. then vou can not INFER mailC. ON
9he part oI III. defendant. simply from the
.Sct that the adN1?'l-CIn.E' Is beth GeialI.-
storV and ials" liz ii" cas-. u! an adv.r-
.iscueut .igu.G by PARTIES who gave their
residence. u - IN" duty ol th" p.aIntit: 10
prov" ma.ICs. an. unless he doe. he ear
EpC recover h.lAd.t~. 1 Ne ais rilIcIltE tt-
swecu an edIt"rIa. and an HNrc:tisem.nt
constitutes tur reason .or III. litter
euCe -; liability IL 'he ~" eases.
in IN" first. 'hc charge. il n"i:matrrv
and false. comes from tn" proprietor HIM
Sclt; he youVhes upon his own ?.s9ou-l-
bIIty for tn" truth OF the publication. and
should be held strictly aCcouutacl. Il I'll.
publication turn out - l." false and deiam-
atory. Bat III the ease az an advertise
meut bearing The signature and residence
of the party who wishes is publication. the
prOpretUr can not uC said ~ NouCh for the
;rurh of the aNtgMcptS Cr charges III The
publication. NOBODY IL the community
would believe the charge I" :e true.
because they know the proprietor .; the
Uauer TO be % responsible man. In -uch
case the public would look to the character
of the author of the publication 10 b".'v.
or disbeiieye the charge. II III" parties
.iruinv the advertisement are shown !" b"
men who we're known 70 the proprietor "t
the raper. and known by him /" u" 'n-
.it'e6 70 no credit or il the CIRCUMSTANCES
.xis.ipr Al the time were such that an =!
Jinarily prudent man ought To have mac
;rouirjrs. then the proprietor could No,
crsim the benefit OF being presumed
a:tLout malice. Bat il the circumstances
rr6ar vh;ch the advertisement was IN
ser.oI were the usual ones IN sueh cases
and that there WAS nothm: III existence d.
:be time 10 excite the suspicious "i F'""e,uI
man. then the publication Is Tree iolI W . llle
.rasrmnfipu Of malice. however oelalna-
:.rv and false it may have oeen' 40 ""in-
aots can be awarded by Non. unless 'he
80. .l,,,-, yDair1p lI,tS'AG 81 ,kS