277 S.W. 759 | Tex. App. | 1925
This suit is brought by appellee against appellant for damages because of the following libelous article published in the San Antonio Light, a newspaper of wide circulation, on July 12, 1924:
"Filing of complaints against him followed the seizure of the steamship Olga at Port Lavaca, suspected of having participated in the liquor trade.
"Rangers and customs officers claim that liquor from New Orleans has been landing at Port Lavaca for some time. In addition to the liquor seized from Keeran, rangers captured a truckload of bonded goods in San Antonio ten days ago. Advices from Galveston state that several truckloads were seized at Port Lavaca prior to the seizure of the Olga.
"Officers believe that the liquor was brought to the 12-mile limit by steamship and taken into Port Lavaca by small fishing boats. The operations, they claim, extended all along the Texas coast and furnished liquor for a number of Texas cities."
This article was alleged to be false and libelous and "wrongfully, willfully, and maliciously published." The truth of all the said allegations were negatived and denied.
Appellant's defense, among other things, admitted the publication and alleged that the publication itself and the imputations reasonably and properly deduced therefrom were true in substance and in fact, and that if they were not true defendant believed them to be true and the publication was made in good faith; that the publication was privileged, in that it was a reasonable and fair comment of matters of public concern published for general information, without any malice whatever.
The case was tried before the court without a jury, and upon all the issues of fact the court found for the appellee, and the material facts as found are fully predicated upon similar facts found in the Express Publishing Company Case. The facts in this case are almost identical with those in the suit of Express Publishing Co. v. Keeran (Tex.Civ.App.)
The publication declared upon in this case was plainly libelous, as we held in Express Publishing Co. v. Keeran (Tex.Civ.App.)
This case was tried before the same trial judge who tried the Express Company Case, supra, who rendered judgment for the same amount as herein, and there is no proof showing any misconduct or prejudice; hence it is not excessive. In view of our decision in the Express Company v. Keeran Case, supra, we can see no reason to hold differently here. It would indeed be a strange inconsistency so to do.
We do not think there was any error in excluding the answer of the witness Gillon or Dewees, because obviously it was hearsay testimony. The case is excellently briefed, but we cannot reverse ourselves and hold differently on the same state of facts, because of the shade of difference in the publication, since the same inferences and deductions were clearly drawn from the facts by the same trial judge.
We have carefully examined the record and the admirable briefs of counsel and find no reversible error assigned; therefore the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.