The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1878-04-30


the corporations; that especially during
the year 1878 the plaintiff in the libel
suit did use and employ The goods, money,
means, and credit Of the said corporation
for his own and his brothers private use,
business, and benefit; that he took the
goods and money OF thesaid corporation
70 pay his own employees that he borrow.
ed money and used II In his own
business and gave said corporations notes
therefor; that he and his vile purchased
goods, wars, and merchandise Of divers
persons and at various times during the
wears 1871 and 1872 and especially dur
Ing the year 1873 for their own and
friends' use and had them charged 10 the
corporation" These being set forth In
The declaration the innuendo, slhereby
meaning that the plaintiff had embezzled
the goods and money Of said corporation"
These allegations without any innuendo
would not be libellous In themselves, and
the innuendo Improperly extended the
meaning Of the words, and II the pnblica.
ton Of these words had been all that was
complained OF in the declaration q gener-
al demurrer TO the declaration ought 10
have been sustained.
But II such declaration alleged the
publication OF the writing in these words,
The said plaintiff 10 the Islander suit and
others have been and are conspiring 70
deiraud the other stockholders In said
corporation, to divert the means, money
and credit Of the corporation 10 their
own individual use and ends, and against
the interest and welfare OF the other
stock holders 10 the said corporation,
and the innuendo Is Thereby meaning
that the plaintiff while acting as the gen.
eral superintendent and agent Of said
corporation, deirauded the said corpora
tion and conSpired with other persons to
defraud and cheat said corporation
This language without any innuendo was
libellous, and the innuendo did not extend
the meaning Of the words. And as the
allegation IA in its nature distinct and
diyisible from the others the defendants
could not properly demur TO the whole
declaration, and such demurrer ought
to be overrultd.
III, .L ar
ing containea IN = oili " sasngey, r Ivy
under Inc o. secion o. gu 90 .'i, ine Soa'
alleged that the party who was plaintiff
In the libel suit had been elected genera
superintendent by himself and brothers
who held msjority 10 interest in TIT
STOCK Of saia cotpTta.Gn, anu 'na Inc .as,
Fsiiii Soted sucn s!oeS anu skins ueeie'
OF Tue court I,ssoisips saiu so,p oIa,
ton, the said aiieganohs were PeLtinen'
70 ,he case sougnt " 9e liaue ~ .ne ,; Ti,
ana the rene, prayed ior, anu no hoe
sun could DC ins..I I Dasea gu .rem.
tney oeihs aosoiu'e'y Pf'fieseu puo'iea
hons; ,r,,,
Lioeilous matters puoisnsa oay ~ u,
que course Oh iegst Pfoseeuuies SIna " !
DC the OASIS Of Lioei suls' pI n',iI9 'ai
court In whien lhey were pupi'sneu hae
jurisdiction OF tne cause, aha Ihey were
pertinent 70 lhe sun, even II 1ney " ioel
Gus renecuons on .ne cnatac.sr 81 PEI,
sons not pafnes 70 .he sun, II me sun
was not fesorted 70 mercy iof .ae pun
pose OF conveying lne scahua anu -
cover iof tle nAiiGe o. lne pa'! anu no.
IN gooa isi.n iot lhe assef'ioa .. hga,
or Tue feoiesS Of wrong II .ne SUI
was fesor'ea 70 LOT suca purposes ana
WIN sueh wlons.Ia moaSe i've. .ne ., TOUT,
does NOT deciue wne.ner suSn pefilneh
aliega,'ons Moulu of Mouia io .,S ~ 70
gaioed as aosoiu.eiy PtMleseu R upiiea
uons e4empling !ne parry from naoiLi!y
70 = noei sun 'h's question: moi "isips 10
II aaeciara'ioh on i.s laSe SHOWS mat 1tt
hoeiious mattefs complainea oi wete
pnpiished IN tns que COURSE o. iegal pro-
ceedures !. WIN % heid lstaiiy delee,iye
on gehefai asmu w y, unless II iur.ne'
SHOWS that the iioeliohs matters com
planned Of are not absolutely privileged
pnphcatons nnder lhe general rue ma
all such publications. are 90 privileged
BY alleging iaets, !nat oring IL withit
some exceptions 70 ms genera ruie, suc1
as thst me court haa no JntisaicIlon, OF
that me iioelioas mater ailegea was mol
peTnnent 70 sucn luulSiai Ptoceeaute.
II the declaration ailege iaes showing
that the iioelious allegations were within
some exceptions 70 the genera RUE =
plea denying that u comes Hitnin sueh
exceptions named In me deciata,on by
alleging ,hG me court haa jurisdiction
OF lnat me lloellous aliesations were per,
Iineh' 70 lne cause " .ne SAse may % y
8eoa plea In par, thoush IL does mol
deny express nance.
a pies tnas tne lioel i9!s maIte .n com
planned OF were only puonsned 10 tne pro,
ceedings In lhe cause institalea accord
ing 70 the regular soa5te Of Judicial pro-
ceeau,e ana lnat me defendants haa rea,
sonaoie cause ior Deiieving and did
actually believe that they were pertinen!
10 the cause Is q good pleain bar and
such plea need not deny express malice.
But II there 10 no allegation In plea
that the libellous allegations were peril.
nent or that the defendants had reason,
able cause for believing and did actually
believe them 10 be pertinent TO the cause
Il must then deny malice 10 the publica-
tion, or the plea will not be good plea
In bar.