Case Name: James M. Cass v. New Orleans Times
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1875-03
Citations: 27 La. 214
Docket Number: No. 3433
Parties: James M. Cass v. New Orleans Times.
Judges: Justice Wyly concurs in this opinion.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 214–224

Head Matter:
No. 3433.
James M. Cass v. New Orleans Times.
The defendants in this case, by publishing the contents of an affidavit which was false and malicious, in the manner and with the comments they did, in a widely circulating newspaper, gave tbe false charges against the plaintiff an extensive circulation, and imparted to them an air of authenticity which they would not otherwise have had, and which this court may well suppose to have had a strong tendency to injure the character of the plaintiff. It is no justification to the defendants that they believed the affidavit to be true. Their belief in the truth of the charges tended rather to increase the bad effect of them against the plaintiff.
That defendants have condoned for the publication of the offensive article in which this suit originated, by publishing an exculpatory letter of tbe plaintiff’s attorney, affords no escape from tbe responsibility in damages to the injured party. The reparation of the injury, to the extent that the publication of exculpating and explanatory matter may be supposed to have made reparation, may he considered, and goes only in mitigation of damages. Thousands may have read the libelous matter that never saw its refutation.
It does not avail to say that the defendants had no malice or ill feeling against the plaintiff. In all oases of this sort, where the charge is false, the law implies malice in the publisher, not malice in the sense of hatred, spite or revengeful feeling toward the party assailed, but as showing an evil disposition, the malus a/nvmus which induced him wantonly, recklessly or negligently, in disregard of the rights of others, to aid the slanderer in his work of defamation by giving to him the powerful influence of the public press — written or printed slander being justly considered more pernicious than that uttered by words only.
In an action of libel proof of damages from the publication is not necessary to recover. The actual pecuniary damages in such actions can rarely he proved, and is never the sole rule of assessment.
APPEAL from the Seventh District Court, parish of Orleans. Oolletis, J. Jury trial.
MeGloin & Kldnpeter, for plaintiff and appellee. W. H. Hunt, G. 8. Lacey, A. W. Wallcer, James Lingan, for defendants and appellants.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
Howell, J.
The motion to dismiss this appeal, which has been •submitted to us during this month, was filed in May, 1871, two years since. The grounds of the motion are insufficient in themselves for a dismissal, the record appearing to be completed, and containing the ^petition of appeal and a bond in due form, and for a sufficient sum.
Motion refused.