@-R-No. L-IS742, January 3l, (4et MIGUEL TOLENTING, Placntif{e He = VS CIRILO P- BAYLOSIS , Defendant - Appellee * Te Gee i ees Migusl Tolentirye filed A tomplicint eae eS bette tiejiuccede ier te, Court of Fist ace Sale pelts by te Court of Abpeat-s oneeters Fe) a hak the auhole rssur therein iavolved is me te 4 Plaintiff migecl Tpleucting ond - defendauck appellee — ES - de P- Poulsis are bette leungers. iyo appeared as owngel for | “appaing parties. The pladete fe Seeks to eal Ss at dagepe ennai fhe Statements of the aleftand. which pladeotift ae that are Uihelous awd duagectry to Wis ohoracky™ Sod veputadinr as a know lauren, as w freer. high governed of frail _ of frcral eS amd edatece lan and as 6 ecto of geod ei a the community, pe ceekS +o reervor from Ap) sum of F foo, 000-02 as actual anck_ moval damages: Te subject pleading captimed “Reply te ieee camtevdainu” eovlatned statements cud as: “mous bes due fo the will of Cod ov due bh He ances “hice cy. ae aad amd eounsel . ‘ung to —— ofthy. Toleucino’s ccopacity as 6 lancer alleging het be & wot a goad. che tr ome who has He Coliba h demand a professionel sewle, of oe & ee fee “Pawlsis dees not han — sSatemouds soetlaines oe ae Ce TINS toe ae ee Speen in ae eh ee ee ae =Both complaint ard couterclaim were disnuced by the trial court Only he pluinttf appealed. —TSsite: whether or not appellees statements constitute ave So a action fe i dewnages ee : se Te he pensallg geleped ula Hal cancel paces or witnesses are acempkd liability ia Ubel or slander fr words Sa published jn the — Once ee jediaal procadings povided that the statements gre comeckd with, or relevant a. or_matevial to, fhe cause a hand or subject of ing And te test of relevancy “has been ai A Huas : w As to the degree of velovancy peace nece~ ssary to make alleged SS makers priveleged i courts favor a liberal, rule. water to which the. i ged “does ES dligs lae cue oe iene eo micther of “be. cnfeteay Hed ne reasonable man can dorbt fs ierclevan ee - Jn order that meter alleged in lea may ae - ned not be ap Case, al fo the issues the leachings. Tt must honever, be Ririte ea thereto cy 0 pertinent te the Subject of he emtoversy that if may become the subject of = gui tn the ‘ln He “Cruse of f AOS -- CSiuith , PALE, Co é vs: Ellis). a ee = Applying the. fest of relutney ts the case ct bay, ed oe ma D uieies oe Complatied of caunot be the basis of am acti lamoges. ee = SPER (oma etheavy expenses wluielr ‘thoy ete have suffered frou Pee Venter ond. tanmicel Oe orhecHy. oe ss Tah eo 2 had no place in a pleading. Equally /yrelevaut are the allegichions complained of that the Vappellant was net og “bis usual mind in making the claim 1s certainly not relevant ev perfineyt to the Issue whetor the dunages asked were te oy utr Those damages —arore asked for, not by She appellant but by bes _elieuds has tide of sal & wot, and could not be a pmper subject a leg uiry The plkadings shold S toetain er the plain ak mele = of the material facts and. wot the idence by while are th be proved--. Tf the pleada — es ae ae ee = am Weelwvant mater which © Ubelous tous he loses Le privelecge © Te appear however that the apps ant Vea an Ubeled. by wa, of vetaliochn , ee Aree Hays pre- viowly, eipllant Toleutnn in a euuterclain, filed — _agaiict appellue Bay aylosis , had ed attack He late Geach vrihy ti ft was here who fest Ubeled apprllee ee es jherefre did vot cog. te court OE aa hands, avd sbat Indubaing ia cffeusive pusenalities th the comse of judiaed pracdings opastifatec ‘highly vanprefessionsl oon Luck subject to di dtrciptinay alin crea if the’ publication hereto priveleged , wx “find. 1m pele ey _ef wm fhe AisnusseL of Appelhaut ¢