New Orleans Republican., 1873-06-19
Court Items.

IN the Superior Court yesterday Judg
| Hawkins set aside the injunction obtained
by the contractors who supplied the mea
to the city institutions which was ALLEGED
| to be decayed. This was done on tn,
| ground that that was not the prope
| remedy. The contractor are now at lbert,
to sue for damages. The defense VIII know
how much the jury viii give for meat which
they are at liberty to prove was decayed
Judge Lynch's patience is ea'ly exhaust
| ed. The trial of the libel case has con
| sumed SIX days. The defense have not vel
| commenced any evidence under the genera
issue, to which the decayed state Of thei,
pleadings reduce them. Hour after hour
has been consumed in argument by the
learned counsel on the propriety OF a single
question. The court at the conclrsio OF
the days work. told counsel no more argu.
ments on questio iors of evidence wor'd be
heard.
The days business was opened bv a mo.
ton Of plaintiff 8 counsel to s,Iike from the
answer of the defendants all except the
general denial. Everybody was heard on
that point. The answer was analyzed and
commented on. Mr.. Ogden was not pres
ent during the greater part it.
At the onclusion Of the argument Judge
Lynch examined the answer paragraph by
paragraph. He compared the various de-
malls and contradictory averments. This
examination of the answer he gave to illus
trate and sustain his previous rulings.
These restrict the defense to their proof
under the general issue. He finally decided
he would not sustain the motion as pre-
sented, but would entertain a motion re.
stricting the defendants to their proof un-
der the general issue.
The defense excepted.
Mr.. Ogden then put tie question of the
day before to Mr.. Rhett. whether he or auy
Of the directors had any malice in pu blish-
ing the article in question. Mr.. Rice ob.
jected, and opened the argument on the
point. He said it was not competent for
the defense to show by testimony of the de-
PENDANTS that they had no personal spite.
The jury. and the jury alone, were to deter
mine whether this malice did or did not
mark this publication. 1t would appear
difficult priori to imagine how it would
be possible to appreciate a TACT which was
kept entirely concealed and out of view.
Indeed, in the very many cases that are ap-
pllcable to this question they almost with
out exception concur in the ruie that the
question OF malice is to be submitted to the
jury upon the face of the libel or publica-
1t is not for the plaintiff to prove malice
it is an inference - be- left to ,he jury. If
the words are in themselves actionable,
malicious iutent in publishing them is an in
ference of law. and therefore needs no proof.
1t is unnecessary to weigh the evidence.
it is sufficient that It was satisfactory to
tie jury and proper for their consideration.
1t is clear that in the class Of cases in
which this ranges Itself that the question Of
malice is exclusively with the Jury. In ac
tions of this Kind malice j, inferred. At
common law If the words spoken or pub
lished are in themselves accionabie tas they
import an accusation OF an indictable OF.
fense), maliciou. intent is an ir+erence Of
law. and. therefore. needs no proof. Mr..
Rice quoted from numerous authorities,
and the legal reader may consul: with
profit l Green, 2l: ? Green. rs: Pei4it vs..
Weed, % An; 5 r., ll6; IA La. 1888; 3 Pick,
5s4; II An, 2J6; 10 An, 200.
Mr.. Ogden followed Mr. Rice. Judge
Dibble answered Mr.. iando.7h arg oed at
length. Judge Cooley closed .or The !laiu-
tiff.
Judge Lynch. ir reviewing the points
presented, accepted the views o. ". ice.
and sustained the objection. OF the author.-
ty of the third L ov ard Ee leH ju formed
counsel that too Il uch time lad been taken
up in this nsuner. 20 rore a-suments
would be heard on the admission CT evil
dence.
Mr.. Ogden asked Mr.. ''he:: if Re lad in
his possession the report OF The Senate com.
mit:ee when the article was wC.:eH.
Objected 20, and objection sustained.
He then ashed ii its op,:c. vas the good
of the public.
Objected to, and objection sustained.
On cross-examinar.on, Mr.. ihec: stated
he was the editor. with the assistance of
Captain Dill. Tina: tie directors never
him. Tina! be did no: write She
article. 1t was submitted 20 20 one. That
h:a father lil 10: write It.
M. j. c. Morris, called for :he defense
said the directors had aoth'n, to % with
the publication Of the articles.
The resolution of May Is, 1872. was de-
feated. The board refused % confde the
direction Of the paper 70 any member. No
member was authorized 70 Interfere. The
paper was entirely IN charge o. M-. Rhe:t.
Judge Cooley wanted 10 know what the
board would do if Mr. Rhet. should publish
articles contrary to tie wishes OF the board.
and the witness eaid he world grumble.
The hour Of four was then reached, and
the court adjourned to prevent mere
gcumbIing.