The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1875-12-19
m RAyIrr 4 posD CASE.

- III DAs~A
=. esyIey 4 Pond "a. Psal fosreh!
- tAe Merchant Mutual Insurance
C,apasy rfsh District Court, No
/ az, Parish Of Orleans.
n..,,emIn Of the. .Jury--Dy reference
vt. article 1915 of the Civil Code Of
y Viz M YOU will perceive that "every
~hafeycr Of man that causes dunn
~ ssA6 another obliges him BY whose
m Il happened to repair il" Refer e
sS'cjc AL OF fiie same code and you
III Ind that "a corporation ~ an In
~. Vincent body, created by law" which,
.s.gndsr the provision OF article 43s Of
.nia IW code. must act through It's officers
,s ~ vSofn Il cntrusts tho direction and
s.rc Of Its affairs, according 10. the
.s.tntes Of the corporation Of which
,Ssv are the heads. They may bind
-. corporation to which they belong,
- III such matters as legally. come
Sithip tho puryiew. OF their authority,
XII beyond that they cannot. A cor
nnofstlon cannot be guilty. II Islander,
Notwithstanding II Is considered q legal
s,hIieation Of libel, and In such
yon nsent becomes the publisher there.
- md liable In like manner as an
q xIITiuaI. The reason Of this
y vahst. nil who In anywlse aid, or
- soncerned In the production OF the
.,3,icc. are regarded In law HI the au-
secss hereof. As II one cOmp0ses and
x% SsJa second writes. and third
...S,i IE6cs, each 10 liable. mot as Is
; kk"~slinles sald, because corporation
80 IN With malice, but because It has
: '1,nclty for voluntary action, and Is
ss.s,nnajble for such action.
: GIrCrdingly II has boon held that o
.ssssyrNtiOn aggregate may well, In It's
ssSsnnorate capacity. causc tho publica-
4 Xxx Xxx n dsfamatory statement under
ss,ch circumstances as would imply
& gH;icr. n O., d bad intcnt,) In law suffl-
I. sisnt 10 support the action; and there
. .. ~ ~ circumstances by which express
- M IN fact might be proved, such MS
- Geke corporation aggregate liable
E,1rcf0r IN its corporate capacity"
iiITf'"swsecnd On SANDER and Libel, sec
~ rs and 2e5, and i. Vlnas W.. Mer
VIA Mutual Insurance. Company.
~ vt reported. No. 1850 Of the Su-
!. sss.ne Court, ~ N. T., 472.1 Il Is my
6sfY 10 Instruct you ~ 10 tho difference
S ~ Islander and libel. that you may
~ morn readily understand why q cor
rofnticn may not bs held liable for the
icrnacr. Blandcr Ia defined to be n
Ei6l,r occasioned by speech, and libel Q
Srong occssioped by writing or cfflgy.'"
.Yu will Observe thGt language Is
Usually common 10 both, the dis-
tinetI,s difference being that one,
slAnder, .is effected by oral Ian
susge; the other, libel, by Language
ihsf iswritten The latter Is regarded
q calculated, 10 most cases, to do
efsusey injury than the former. and
accordingly 4 u an accepted doctrine
lhstsspoken language, which may give
30 right Of action, may, II reduced to
1f1tjba, h8ve quite n contrary eject.
Townsend o0 SANDER and Libel. sec.
II every SANDER, says this author.
rms, theirs are two act3 "a the COM
i00lnr, and ~ tho publishing. In
every hbel there arc three acts: az the
composing; ~ the writing, and (3) tho
pvt(ishing. Tho net which Is the essen.
Val elemept ID the wrongs, Islander and
libel. Is d wrongful publication Of Ian
I fke rule Of law Is. that no one should.
Without legal excuse, publish language
which u calculated TO iniure or dam
seo. hlm. In other words. says the
e0lhor already quoted, y. liz, Every
pHblIcation Of language concerning q
nSnUr hts 8ffairs. which, as u necessary
HhAtnral and proxiinate consequences
VISIONS pcctfpiary los5 10. him. Is
cfeRA f0ele y chandler or q libel--a Sian
doft II the publication DO oral: libel,
u he publication be by writing. To
SeoAstiiute either. the Language must
y. defsnatory.. false. and the
pdbtication ,nado with malice. or
6ede n,aliciousiy. Tie fact Of tho
language being true. does not prevent
rs amounting 70 y wrong, In prose-
cutlons for libel the truth may be given
y evidence, andif IL be made 70 appear
Mnt the matter charged as libelous is,
IND wes published with good motives
md for justl1able ends, tho party
should be acauittcd." Rays Revised
o(stutcs. y. 10 sec. 3Sll. BY the 123d
section or Rays Revised Statutes. II ID
1eclaScd that mo client or other person
0Anu be hold liable or responsible for
apy slanderous or libelous words utter
&by hts attorney at law, but attorneys
lAAlI b. themselves liable and responet-
be Tor any slsndarous or llbclous words
ulteFed by them.
IN applying these general principles
p the case before You, \ will be your
duty 10 ascertain what Il Is the plain
~ demand, and what defense tho DC.
eadAnts set up. To save you the labor
within Its province TO do DO. The
plshtifs allege that Paul Fourchy aud
" Merchants Mutual Insurance Com
p1ny OF New Orleans, arc indebted IN
lo3dO unto them In the sum Of &1O0, 800
~ this, that as socn as II became
P4own that they would claim Of the
~ company its pro rGt0 Of loss by the
~, which had previously consumed
uel nigh all the goods, etc, on which
rAoy had Effected policies OF insurance
Various insurance companies, the
~ Fourchy, acting Gs the President
WtAc Msid company, and tho said COIN.
peny itself. through it's officers and
lDentS, began naIicIorsly and falsely TO
&ve ont and to pretend TO the public
9at their claim for insurance was
laudulent and exaggerated, and
70 stated and declared to differ
~ persons from June /, 1874, to
NO 18th OF October OF the same year,
y tne ofbce of tho company and tho
Coetd q Underwriters. That on or
enoYt the 18th October. 1874, tho do.
H@aeents caused to be published In the
asy Vtlcans Bulletin G false, malicious
80 tmelous article, marked D. which
u evidence, and which thoy allege
~ needless, wanton, false, malicious
Sana iipSlous IN Its entire scope and OBJ
N They alle9e that the authors Of
taetein insinuated aud intended 10
mptess on the public tho belief that
toc{. PlAlQtIIs thems alxea caused THAR