Weil v. Israel
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the First District Court, Parish of Caddo. Hicks, J. 1. A party is liable in damages for slanderous allegations set up by him in his. pleadings, where there is no probable cause in making same. 29 An. 66; 33 An* 1265. 2. The only defences to slander are a denial, or a justification, or a confession under mitigating circumstances.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the First District Court, Parish of Caddo. Hicks, J. 1. A party is liable in damages for slanderous allegations set up by him in his. pleadings, where there is no probable cause in making same. 29 An. 66; 33 An* 1265. 2. The only defences to slander are a denial, or a justification, or a confession under mitigating circumstances. O. 0.1934; 16 La. 389; 11 An. 207; 14 An. 198; 16 An. 389; 3 An. 69; 6 An. 779; 38 An. 161. The use of opprobrious language implies malice when it is slanderous per se. When plaintiff proves the use of such lan guage the burden of proof is on defendant to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Watkins, J.
Plaintiff claims of defendant $5000 as damages— $2500 for an alleged libel and slander, and $2500 for an alleged malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. These charges are grounded in certain judicial proceedings: The libel and slander in the answer of defendant in a certain civil suit, entitled N. Weil vs. M. Israel, the parties thereto being identical with those before this court, in which a claim was made for the quantum meruit value of plaintiff’s services rendered to the defendant as a clerk; the malicious prosecution and false…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Guice v. HarveySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1839