The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1875-12-19

business 81 petstiohers That pef,ts6nef,
were fndulging in IN Illicit practice ant
trade that their claim was not sounC
and honorable. nor their business hon
orabfy conducted. All these matter,
they allege were written and publishes
by the said Fourchy and the said incur
ance' company, ID the New Orleans B.h
letin, on the 18th Of October, 1874, fol
the purpose Of impressing upon the
public fhe belief that such had been
their (petitiohers' conduct In all th<
matters thus particulartzed in their al.
legations. Thcy allege that the New
not only in New Orleans but also in all
parts of the United Statce.
They further allegc, that in quit in
stltuted In the United States Circuit
Court for the District of Louisiana, No
1854 Of the docket Of said Court
against the London and Lancashire
Fire Insurance Company, defendants
filed IN answer, wherein it was mali
ciously and falsely and libelously as.
serted that these petitioners had them
selves fired their store Or procured It to
be done, whereby their loss was suffered
on the night Of the 29th May, A. y. 1874,
and that said defendants reiterated said
charges orally from time to time after
the date Of Hlin8 said answer, to wit, on
the 25fll January, 1875. They aver that
all the Injurious statements In tho
premises. by them set forth, made and
published, mt tho instance and insti-
CATION Of the defendants I'm this suit,
were malicious, false and libclous, and
that they have been injured thereby To
the extent claimed. TO wit : one hundred
thousand dollars. and they pray for
Judgment IN sOlidO against the said
Paul FOurchy aud the Merchants Mu-
tual Insurance Company Of New Or
leans for tho sum Of one hundred thou.
sand dollars With costs.
10 this demand the defendants plead
the general denial, which places Tho
plaintiffs on tho proof Of all their mate
rial allegations. And here / must in
strnct you to disregard any and oil allie
cations charging tho Merchants MI.
tual Insurance Company with tho oral
concerning the plaintiffs, IL any you
should find III their petition, for tho
reason that corporations as such arc in
capable ofperpctratIng u SANDER (Ses
Townsend on s. and L.. page 1891 The
members In their individual capacity.
although pretending TO actas the agents.
etc, OF the corporation. may become
personally liable.
Your first step In this investigation
will DO TO discover from tho evidences
before you whether SANDER on the part
OF Paul Fotrchy has been committed
against tho Plaintiffs according to the
material allegations In their petition.
Should you iiid afJlrmativcly ha alone
as I'm individual should be held Liable
therefor, as tlice can exist no solidarity
OF obligation In any matter Of Islander
between him andtlle company. although
he be the preside,t thereof.
Your next step will be to ascertain
whether libel his been published by
him OF. by the company. or by both, as |
alleged. II you 80 Ind you should next
whether no nlope Ia liable |
therefor or whctherthc company u. Or
whether both ore. I you should find |
that both are their iability Will be- IN
sOlidO.
Your next inquiry will DO to as
certain what wcre the motives OF
tho publishers Or uthors Of the
libel n publishing. u you fand
q libel sgeinst plaintifisss alleged In
this investigation YOU must /
confine yourselves stri1y. to tho cvi. I
dcnce before you. and sbuld yon dis.
cover from Il that 'sthe hitter charged /
MS libclous was published 18th good mo.
tives and for justiflable endso (tlo
truth Of the charges In tn publication
not having bceu pleadecbv defend
ants), II should 90 to mitigae only. and
not TO excuse entirely. The burdcn OF
proving the good motives I'D iustifia-
bio ends" was on the defenante, and
II you find that they have noprodaeed
such proof, then they arc prtumed 70
have intended the natural Cd proxi.
tho language Is actionable andhe pub.
location does not appear to be 6 j priv
LEGGED character, II Is presume IL bs /,
felse and malicious; |. g.. PUBLISHED
without lawful excuse. Should yu find
that IL ID privileged. prin1n tao, tho
onus Of proving malice In fact, |. { that
the defendants were actu0ted y. mo-
tives OF personal spite or ill-will vssI
upon the plaintiffs This is q queion
for your exclusive consideration. ak
ing statement which Ia untrue tChe
knowledge OF the party making ! Is
evidences Ut malice. Il
In reality the intention to injurds
malice, and "the act by means Of With .
o malicious net, and the act IL done n
liciously." Townsend. p. t2l.] The
tention therefore OF person In til.
commission Of an act must be- infcrre(
or deduced from the necessary consc
quences Of It, and where these are per-.
Tiicious OF. Injurious, the intent TO- work
mischief becomes conclusion Of law.
Malice Is express or implied, and In
either case II mems, IN legal sense,
neither more nor less than willfulnets.
Malice Is an imputAtion Of law from the
false and injurious nature OF the charge.
"a Wend1 Gas respects a publication
by writing q libel not only the publish
or but all who In anywise aid or are con-
cerned in tho production OF tho writing,
or who knowing 1t to be libelous, pay
for its publication, are liable as publish
crs; the publication Is the act Of oil
concerned In the writing" (Townsend
on SANDER and libel, sec. 116.
It follows that II you find from tho
evidence thnt Paul Fourchy aided, or
was la anywlse concerned In the com
posing, writing or publlcstoin az a IL
belouS article against the plaintiffs rs
they allege he was, that he 50 acted
without good motives and without JUS
tifiable ends, they will be entitled to q
verdict at your hands In their favor
And so must charge you 40 70 the
Merchants Mutual Insurance Com
pany, should you find that It has,