The Rice belt journal. (Welsh, Calcasieu Parish, La.) 1900-19??, 1919-05-17
Subscription $3.50 Per Annum in Advance
ion, and quoting from Wallis vs..

ton, and quoting from Wallis vs..
Railroad, 20 La, Ann. So, says:
THE doctrine which should govern
the court in such controversies is
simple and sound. Was there prob
able cause to justify the charge? Was
the charge made under the honest
and reasonable belief that it was
true? If so, no damages can be re-
covered" And again, quoting from
Vinas VS.. Merchants Mutual Insur-
ance company, 33 Ann. 1867, the SUI
preme court says in the Lescale case:
THE charge of fraud made by the
defendant at the time of the inStitu-
ton of the suit on the policy was
pertinent to the issue, and could be
asserted with impunity, provided it
were made in good faith, with prob
able cause, to be ascertained from
the surrounding circumstances, and
a state of facts honestly believed to
be then in existence"
The supreme court of California in
Ball vs.. Rawles, % PaC. 9S7, dis
tinctly say that it is not only essen
tial that the facts alleged to Consti-
tute probable cause be such as to
cause an ordinary person to believe
in the truth of the charge, BIT that
in addition the person making the
charge, and sought to be held respOn-
sible for doing so, must himself be-
Iieve in the truth of the charge at
the time he makes it.
The court therefore finds that
there was no probable cause to in
clude plaintiff, the only member OF
the police jury before the court, in
the charges complained Of. Assuming
for the sake of argument that he was
negligent and careless in the dis
charge of his duties, still, il such neg
Iigence did not cause defendants to
believe that he was member OF
fraudulent conspiracy, it would not
Justify the allegation that he was
member of it.
1t may be added that every defend
dub w uO JOoh tlC HiLuOoD Dlhho Cup
ported, with his evidence, the aver
ment in the answer that they did not
believe plaintiff guilty of fraud or
that he was a member of COnspir-
acy. The chief difference between the
court and the defendants on point
is that they take the position that the
charges do not include plaintiff, and
were not intended to, whereas the
court rules that the clear import OF
/ the language used necessarily in
cludes plaintiff, whether viewed tech
nically or in the ordinary way.
Should the court be in error in its
construction of the language of the
charges and of the intention there
shown, and should the defendants
construction be correct, then the de-
PENDANTS defense would be perfect.
| Under our law and under our juris-
prudence actual malice, or malice in
fact, such as, that the charges made
were prompted by revenge or hatred,
need not appear.
Legal malice, arising from the lack
of probable cause to make the allie
LEGATIONS is sufficient, and that ap'
pears here. The Louisiana authorities
above cited ON probable cause and
privilege show this. AS defendants
did not have probable cause to make
allegations as against the plaintiff.
lit follows that. the allegations
Ialthough pertinent to judicial pro-
Ieeeding. are not privileged. Sabine
Tram Co. VS.. Jurgens ct al 143 La.
1902.
i 1t has been argued by counsel for
defendants that the court should
hesitate before casting these gen
Itlemen in damages; that their pur-
pose was to secure the building OF
proper highways. This has appealed
to the court, and the court trusts
that it does not go beyond judicial
privilege in saying that If the law
, and the evidence would permit, the
court would do so. The court must,
: however, not be oblivious to the in
7 Jury which it finds has been done
plaintiff, for his cause also is be-
: fore the court. This argument was
: based, of course, alone on the gen.
eral purpose of their action in TAX
: ing steps relative to the highways,
5 and not upon their personality
The only remaining question is the
: lquantum of damages. This is left
( | largely to the sound discretion
of the court. They should be
:. substantial. 1t should also be
t remembered that the chief OBJ
8 ject to be gained by such actions
4 is to vindicate ones honor and not
t lsimply the recovery of money. In this
n case it should be remembered that
t the defendants acquit plaintiff Of
e fraud and of being member OF
e fraudulent conspiracy, though the!
t consider that he was negligent.
= This acquittal of fraud and dis
e honesty ought to go far towards cor
n recting the injury done and ought t
be considered in mitigation of dam
b ages. The court is of the opinion tina
e the proper amount of damages +
Vt allow is 100000. D..
i. For the reasons assigned. it
e ordered, adjudged and decreed tina
.r the plaintiff, Arthur T.. Jones, d
u have and recover judgment agains
l. the defendants, J. o. Modisette
+ Charles r. Honssiere, Thomas
70 Mahaffey, Guy P. Randolph, Philli
st H. Hoag, Avery c. wilkins, and Mi
De ton Holt, in solido, for said sum
le three hundred dollars, with five pc
OF cent per annum interest thereo
ne from judicial demand till paid, an
to for all costs of suit.
s: Done, read and signed. in ope
a court, at Lake Charles, Louisiana, G
e. this 10th day of May, 1919. Tn
e- case was tried at Jennings, and cou
ut adjourned there before the case WI