St. Tammany farmer. [volume] (Covington, La.) 1874-current, 1913-12-13

| A close scrutiny of Article Nv
leaves the plaintiff in no bel Ter stu
atom. This article. standiH-, alone
does not allege cause of &C; ion. 1t
will be noted that the plaill.iff does
not allege just how or in wat man
ner' he was libeled by the de. endants.
He merely alleges that the defend
ants did write, or have written. cir.
culate or caused to be circulated,
and they did utter and publish pc
tition containing libeious, defamatory
and false charges against him." He
does not allege what the ''libelous,
tdefamatory and false charges con-
sisted of.
In Article v he merely alleges that
the defendants did write, or have
written in said petition, verbatim, the
language of said original petition.
which it is alleged defendants signed
and circulated. He does not allege
that this language in said petition
was libelous, defamatory and false
charges complained OF and alleged in
Article w Of his petition. This Ar
ticle is merely a statement of what
the petition the defendants signed
contained.
In addition to the above reasons
given why the exception, OF no cause
OF action should be maintained, there
is another very serious reason why.
We will consider the allegations Of
these three articles of the petition
and construe them together, and take
them as one continuous and connect
ing allegation.
What does the petition allege?
Merely that the defendants desired to
have him impeached as mayor Of
the town Of Abita Springs, and in
furtherance of this desire they ad-
dressed to the district attorney a
written request to bring impeach-
ment proceedings against the plain
tiff, and II the language used by the;
defendantsfS in this written reQuaet1
was Mbelous and defamatory, and
contained false charges, was It not
a privilege communication? ?" Ar
ticle 222 of the Constitution of 1898
specifically empowers the citizens and
taxpayers to request the district at
torney, in writing, to bring impeach-i
ment proceeding against q specific of
f1cer, therein named. Any of the Off
GERS named in Article 222 may be Inn
peached for causes enumerated in
Article 217. (See Article 222 of the
Constitution Of 1899.
Article 217 says these officers
shall be liable to impeachment for
high crimes and misdemeanors, "for
non-feasance and malfeasance in of,
fice," for incompetency, for corrup-
ton: for favoritism. extortion or op-
preston in Office, or for ''gross mis-
conduct. or for habitual drunken
ness
All that this petition or written re-
quest, signed by the defendants and
addressed to the district attorney,
contained was, that the mayor of
Abita Springs, ]. E. Gibson. has been
guilty Of malfeasance and non-feas-
ance in office and gross misconduct"
the very language and words used in
Article PIT of the Constitution.
(See Babriel Gardemalvs VS.. Jacob
McWil1iams, 43 An, page 454; So
An, page 78; 21 An, page 275).
Article VI.-The allegations Of
this article evidently intend to al
lege a cause of action for damages
for slander.
1t win be noted that the allegation
is that the defendant, ''in circulat-
ing. etc." (but it is not stated what
the defendants circulated, ETC., evi-
IDENTIFY the petition the defend
ants signed) did make false, defam-
atory and slanderous charges against
plaintiff. It is not stated that in the
contents presumably of this petition,
but in circulating, that Is during the
time the defendant circulated this Pc
tition, they did verbally make
false, defamatory and libelous
charges" clearly slander. The alle-
cations for an action for slander, in
this article, are also equally fatal.
We are not told what the slanderous
words were, where they were said
and spoken and to whom. There
fore taking Articles III, ". v and
vi Of the plaintiffs petition singly
and separately no legal cause Of &C
tion has been alleged nor has a legal
cause of action been alleged ii we
take these articles all together, con-
strue them together as one continu-
GUS AMI connected allegation. for the
reasoR that the petition or written
request addre ssed to the district at
torney is privilege communication,
and hence not actionable, and for the
additional rea son that 1t is not alleg-
ed as a wb ole, or in any one of these
said articl es, that the slanderous and
libelous language imputed to the de
PENDANTS. and which it is alleged that
they ute red and published and spoke
that the defendants knew it was false
when tt .ey uttered and published anc
spoke It, and knew 1t was untrue
In act ions for damage for libel and
slande ,r or both combined. the allie
gatio' j that the defendants knew a.
the line they published the libelou'
mat ,er and spoke the slanderou'
wor ds that it was false, and that the,
KIN sw it was untrue, is sacramen
tai - The plaintiff has failed to s.
al iege. hence no cause Of action lies
I'D has not been alleged In the pc
t ition.
This brings us to a consideration
OF Articles VII, VIII, TX OF plain
tiff's petition.
Article VII alleges: That, in ali
of and to further their aforesaid ma
2 cious purposes and conspiracy, tn
+. defendants presented the original pc
tition,. copy OF which marked "A,
is an uexed to the original petition
bsrein, TO J. Vol Brock. district At-