New Orleans Republican., 1873-08-28
ANOTHER LIBEL SUIT
Judge Howe Claims 100000 Damages
The New Orleans Times Called to
Account for its Malicious and
Defamatory Publications.


Messrs. John II. Kennard and q. .. Prem
tiss, counsel Of Judge Howe, have filed the
following petition in tho case of W. w
Howe VS.. Mrs. A. King, in the Sixth Dis
trict Court:
To the Hon. A. saucer, Judge Of tho Sixth Distric.
Court fer the Parish of Orleans:
The petition of William W. Howe, Of the
| city Uf New Orleans, respectfully shows
that Mrs. Alice King, resident of the same
city, is indebted to him in the sum OF
Sl00, 900 for this, to wit:
That on or about the twenty-frst day of
April. 1870 petitioner being then a Justice
| of the Supreme Court of the State of Lou
isiana), there was due to petitioner and to
the other members Of the said court to wit:
Mr.. Chief Justice Lude]ing, Mr.. Justice
Taliaferro, Mr.. Justice Howell and Mr.. JUS
tice Wyly. for salaries, and to the aggregate
sum of about $33, ,976 S3, which had been
long unpaid. That petitioner, learning
that there were general funds in the treas
ury, appeared there with his own salary
warrants, and with three Of the said other
| judges. at their special request, and with a
warrant for the said contingent fund, at
| the request of the court, and demanded
l payment, and received the said sum of
4 AUOuU $sDC, Oh. Z uhU pCtltlOucT EctdluluS
! the amount of about $4,000 due him for sal
| ary, paid the balance to the said judges and
| to the court
That on or about the seventeenth day Of
August, 1873, . petition was filed IN the
| Superior District Court of the parish of
| Orleans, in the name of the State against
| your petitioner, together with James Ora
ham, A. Dubuclet, H. o. Warmoth and
John Demarest, and claiming that the gen.
l.. .ol 81,
the said twenty first of April belonged in
some way to special fund, and demanded
from petitioner the return Of said $33, ,976 50,
| Of which petition, copy published as
hereinafter set forth is hereto annexed,
marked A.
That on or about the seventeenth day Of
August, 1873, the defendant, Mrs. Alice
King was the proprietor and publisher of
the New Orleans Times. daily and weekly
newspaper published in the city of New
Orlesns, and claiming to have the largest
circulation of any journal in the South.
That on Saturday, the said seventeenth
day of August, 1873, there was published
by defendant in said paper, in the most
conspicuous part thereof, the said petition,
with false, malicious and libelous intro
duction or caption, printed with heavy head
lines and large and loaded type, as follows:
'"Pelion on Ossa'-SOmething MOre
about the sale of the jackson railroad stock
belonging to the State-Who got the lush p
The Attorney General calls on Henry C.
Warmoth, Antoine Dubuclet, w. w. Howe
James Graham and John Demarest to dis
gorge.
I'm the Superior District Court on Satur-
day, Attorney General Fellows came again
vigorously to the front with a demand on
the youthful ex Governor, exJudge Howe,
ex-AuditOr Graham, Treasurer Dubuclet
and John Demarest for a restitution of
$I4l ,440 alleged to have been absorbed by
them IN the sale of the New Orleans, Jack.
son and Great Northern railroad stock once
owned by the State. Subjoined is the peti-
ticn."
That the said introduction or caption was
wholly needless, unjust anduntrue, both in
direct language and innuendo. That by the
phrase "PeliOn on Ossa" the defendant
meant to convey the idea that another
charge of fraud was made against officials,
and that petitioner was included in the
charge. That the second sentence of said
heading, to wit, "Who Got the Lash?' was
intended to suggest to the reader. and did
suggest and mean, that there had been Off
cial improperly or malfeasance of some
kind in the sale Of said railroad stock. and
that your petitioner was in some way i'm
plicated therein. That the question "Who
Got the Lush!' borrowed from the dialect
of thieves, was intended to suggest and
mean, and did suggest to the reader that
the petitioner and other defendants inAthe
said published petition had dishonesty
obtained some booty or plunder from the
public treasury. That the fourth clause of
said heading, stating that your petitioner
and others had been called on by the Attor,
ney General "to disgorge," was intended
to suggest and mean, and did mean and
suggest to the reader, that your petitioner,
as we'll as the others therein mentioned had
wrongfully and corruptedly plundered the
State of enormous sums, and were now
called to give up ill-gOtten gains. That the
further statement in the above caption that
the sum of $l41 ,440, was officially 'alleged
to have been absorbed" by your petitioner
and others. was utterly false. and was in
tended to mean and meant and suggested
to the reader that your petitioner, with
others, had cOrruptly absorbed or tor
tuously taken and converted that enormous
sum of the States money.
That the above heading, caption os intro
duction was as to your petitioner utterly
false, both in direct statement and insinua-
ton or inuendo; that the true facts of the
matters as firstly above recited in this petit
ton. were matters of public record in the
Office of the Auditor and Treasurer; that the
said caption or introduction above quoted,
was false and defamatory and published
for no good purpose, but with reckless and
mercenary malice.
Petitioner further alleges that defendant
in copying and publishing the petition itself,
SO far as the plaintiff is concerned, did SO
with malice, and with a knowledge that
she was repeating and giving undue pub
licity to false allegations, especially in pub
fishing the following allegation, to wit:
"All of which the above named parties
knew that they were receiving the funds
arising from the sales of the said stock,
that it belonged to the holders of the bonds
issued by the State as aforesaid to said rail
road company, and that the warrants they
held and for which they received said sums
were not entitled to be paid oSt of said
funds"
That said allegation ie false and was
known to be false by defendant when the
publication was made. That as the pro-
prietor and publisher of n large daily journal
it was defendants duty to to use all due dill
igence in ascertaining the truth or falsity OF
said petition, and particularly said enume-
rated allegations in said petition before
publishing it to the world; that ample op-
portunity was afforded to make such DIS
cOvery.
ten wears resident householder and tree
holder, Judge and lawyer in this city, and
has q large number Of friends, acqualnt-
ances and clients in this and other leading
cities of America and Europe, and through.
out this and other States of the Union, and
that the said journal is sent and circulated
in this and other States and cities, in hotels,
chambers of commerce and public places
especially.
That by means of said false, malicious
and defamatory publication your petitioner
has been injured in his reputation in the
sum of &50, 900 general damage, and has been
specially injured in his good name ana
credit ss Q lawyer to the sum of t5O, 600