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

| majority OF the voters or each ward !
know who their police juror is, and
it may be said to be a matter of gen.
eral knowledge throughout q parish |
as to who constitutes the police jury. |
In the case of Levert VS.. Daily
States Publishing company, 1913 La,
994, the supreme court of Louisiana
says:
, "A sweeping charge of faVoritism
and misconduct levied at the mem
bers of public board, without ex-
ception, necessarily points the finger
of condemnation at every one of
them, though none of them are
named, and if not proven constitutes
a libel if the members are known,
land the publication is generally
understood to apply to them"
| Where charge of misconduct was
made against a board Of registry
and election in New Jersey, which
iresulted in a libel suit, the supreme
court of that state in passing upon
a point identical with that in the
Levert case, cited that case as author
ity, virtually quoting the ruling of
the supreme court of Louisiana, on
It's own reason for the ruling Kelley
VS.. Curtiss, "a Att. 1893.
The court of civil appeals of Texas
says: at is only necessary that the
words refer to some person ascertain
liable from the words used" Houston
Printing company case. Al s. W. on
page 3S5.
The evidence in this case shows
that the charge was understood as
including plaintiff The evidence of
injury shows that
| The record in this case shows that
plaintiff was guiltless Of the wrong
doing charged. However, no matter
how innocent plaintiff is of the
charges made, still il the defendants
had probable cause to believe, at the
} time they were made, that they were
true, plaintiff can not recover A
sterner rule would. in too many in
} stances, so interfere with human
rights, that it would practically close
, the courts to people in many cases,
, for the human mind is not SO perfect
that it can detect in advance with
certainty, whether a given point can
, be established or not, although there
, be reasonable grounds to believe that
/ it can be. A more liberal rule is un-,
necessary. In this case, defendants
plead in their answer probable cause
for making the charges as made. In
I their answer, defendants, however,
t after stating that no specific charge
was levied against plaintiff, and that
plaintiff was not even party to the
= injunction suit, except that the police
jury as whole was cited, say that
| they specially deny that they then
| believed this plaintiff had any con-
5 nection with or knowledge of the
wrongs and frauds alleged; and they
r also deny that they charged directly
t or indirectly in said petition or in
tended to charge by any of said allie
!. cations this plaintiff with any per-
0 sonal or individual wrong tMrpitude
2 or fraud, but your defendants be-
4 lieved then and believe now that the
: said A. I. Jones. plaintiff in this
q suit, was honestly, but enormously
: voting and supporting all the mat
a tiers and things coming before him in
his capacity of police juror, and that
t he was careless and negligent In his
e official duties in not requiring and
t insisting upon more Investigations
l. and more information concerning the
t parish affairs, and more business
0 like methods in their administration
: and handling"
r This court has found that the
:. charge included plaintiff; that il
y would ordinarily be so understood
!, and that it was so understood as in
|, Guiding him by people learning of 1t
Y 1t appears from the answer that the
y defendants did not believe plaintiff
% was a party to the fraudulent con
e spiracy alleged. This being so they
e were without right to make the al
IS legation without excepting him, fol
IS the language used necessarily includ
d ed him, and would be so understood
s. Belief is necessary part of prob
d able cause Mr.. Greenleaf. in hi:
e work on Evidence, says: Probable
e, cause does not depend upon the &C
II tual state of the case, in point o
fact, but upon the honest and reason
% able belief of the party prosecuting
r. 1t must appear that the defendan
N knew of the existence of those fact
lie which tended to show reasonable an,
| 4ho hnnarScn xfy3fhnM
ID knowing them, he could not act upol
re them and also that he believed tina
re the facts amounted to the offens
he which he charged, because otherwis
,e he will have made them the preteX
he for prosecution, without even enter
rs tanning the opinion that he had tn
e. right to prosecute" Greenleaf o.
is Evidence, It'll Ed, Sec. ASS.
nd In the case of Lescale VS.. JOSEF
eff Schwartz company, 116 La, 293, tn
ot supreme court of this state held tina
o. responsibility for injuries in Louis
he ana is statutory; that the questio
Vi must be in every case as to whethe
r. there has been fault on the part {
er the person sought to be held respol
he sible.' They further say that lit
ne CANT who without probable caus
he makes defamatory allegations again
he his adversary knowing them to
incorrect commits fault within Il
,rt meaning of the statute, and can NJ
in escape liability ON the score of Il
ice allegations having been material
Gle the issue. The court further say
is that the common law rule that in
nd suit for libel based on judicial all
IN, cations the verify of material all
IN. cations can not be inquired into, b
ich that such allegations are absolute
ire privileged" does not obtain in Lo
eys isiana. In this case our supreme cou
of Ieviews the Jurisprudence of t
he state on the point under consider