The Rice belt journal. (Welsh, Calcasieu Parish, La.) 1900-19??, 1919-05-17


If defendants are correct in this
position, then any person, who has
a mind to, may with security so shape
a suit as to place his opponent at d
disadvantage that is unjust, and
which would forbid him from going
to trial, but instead would require
him to have the case dismissed upon
exception, and yet in this same suit
could make a libelOus allegation and
escape.
While it may safely be conceded
that defendants in this case, would
not take advantage of such al oppor-
tunity, yet this would not change the
reasoning In the view of the court,
the contention urged is not the law.
While there are some authorities
which would seemingly maintain de
PENDANTS position. yet the better rule
is that the suit is at an end whenever
it is dismissed, without agreement, SC
that for the plaintiff to start again
he must bring fresh suit. In Case
beer VS.. Drahable, IA n. w. 397, it
is said that the weight of authority
and of reason are in favor of the
law as stated above by the court. See
also Kurgren VS.. Mutual Life 1nsur-
ance company, rs Pac. 1858; Graves
vs.. Scott, 2 L. R. A. On. S. 92S. In
addition, it may be added that plain
tiff was not made a party to the in
junction suit, though it is thought
that the solution of the question does
not depend upon this.
1t is contended by defendants that
the charges made do not include
plaintiff. They further contend. which
is correct, that plaintiffs name is
nowhere mentioned in the petition
setting forth the alleged libelOus
charges. 1t is also argued that with
the exception of Hathaway and
IRENE, whose names are mentioned
as guilty of the charge, that the
charge refers to the police jury, not
in the individual capacity of each
of the remaining members, but to
that body as body corporate or po-
lite, which exists by fiction of the
law apart from the members who
compose it. In short, as the court ap-
preciates the contention, it is, as l,
were, that Hathaway and IRENE were
guilty, and that plaintiff and the
others were honestly, though without
the exercise of ordinary care and dill,
gence, but with blindness, innocently
following Hathaway and IRENE, the
effect of which was to throw the bod!
polite, or police jury in a fraudulent
position,
The answer to the above conten
ton is that the charges are not sus
ceptible of that Interpretation.
One reading the charges coulC
never reach that confusion. To reach
| it, he would have to leave the charges
entirely and consult the secret fnten
lions of those making them. Fol
obvious reasons, because this Nigh
be done, would not save the situation
and make the charges non-libelous
The charge is made that the police
| Jury failed to account for thu
| 100000 check, and the imrepss;ol
| is left because of the charge of fraud
ulent conspiracy and conversion. il
allegations that follow, that the mem
bers of that body converted this sun
to some fraudulent purpose.
Defendants, stress the point tina
plaintiff is not included in the charg
of conspiracy, because in charging i
in part they say Petitioners furthe
show that they have good and jus
cause and reason to believe, and d.
verify believe, that there exists collu
sion and a fraudulent conspiracy o
Iconspiracies between the police jury
or some Of its members, particulars
George Hathaway and J. S. IRENE
and the engineer on the one hand
and the Alexandria Gravel cOmpan
on the other" etc. Defendants sa
that the expression following "polic
jury" which expression is, cor som
of it's members, particularly Georg
Hathaway and j. S. Treme," limit
the charge to some of the member
of the police jury, and that the wor
particularly" as used in the expires
: sion is equivalent to "to-wit," an
limits the expression "some of tn
members" to Hathaway and Trem'
/ as being the only two individus
members charged. u
Il The court, however, is unable
gives it's sanction to the above intel
: probation. The word "or," betwee
police jury" and the phrase "som
: of it's members simply indicate
. that the police jury is so charge
and that the defendants realil
that they may fail to prov
l that every member was a part of Il
O conspiracy, and hence they chart
in the alternative by the use of tt
: word ''or," that some of the membe
v were. The word particularly pr
: ceding Hathaway and IRENE"
n not equivalent to "to-wit," al
) simply designates them as the chi
conspirators. The word cor" did n
r withdraw the charge against the p
d lice jury, but under that charge Il
r. defendants could have offered eN
v dence, nad their petition been Othe
a wise good to show that each memb
v was a member Of the conspiracy. T.
v court is of the opinion that the sar
e impression would be created on t
3 lay mind by the reading of t
n charge,
% THAT the clear and natural impt
# Iof the language of the charge
II cludes each member of the poll
% jury appears in succeeding artit
of the charge in which conspiracy
ID charged against the police jury, a
. in which appears an expressit
ID which necessarily refers to the ct
10 ispiracy, which reads Ito all of whi
h. the police jury and the engineer
o parties, whereby the public none
and funds are, to the knowledge
l. these officials, and servants of