47 La. Ann. 354 | La. | 1895
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The testimony in the record convinces us of the following facts in this case: That the defendant was employed by the plaintiff to institute a suit for slander against one Salvadore Du-
On these facts the plaintiff, Mary Emily King, brought this suit to recover from the defendant, the attorney first employed by her to prosecute her suit for slander, damages for neglect to prosecute the same, by which prescription accrued, in the sum of five thousand dollars.
The case was tried by a jury. This jury heard all the evidence offered as to the slander and the ability of the defendant to pay the probable amount that would have been assessed had the suit been successfully prosecuted. The defendant is undoubtedly, on the facts stated, responsible for th6 prescription of the drmand, and is therefore responsible in damages. Thompson vs. Lobdell, 7 Rob. 369.
The jury awarded damages to the amount of two hundred dollars. We think the verdict was correct as to amount.
Rehearing refused.