*1 the same given must fact, be and as and effect as force words, if there In other jury. them, support in the record court. 3 binding upon this they are then 1102, p. and authorities Tex.Jur. cited. in evidence that Inez It is Jordan her em- forged checks not submit ployers, but withdrew and secreted deftly the statements also that she of account so altered forgeries her conceal their ex- prepared reconciliations month which showed amination each state- proper the bank’s balance between books, trial firm’s ments and the of such that their examination court held ex- was the and reconciliations cir- “ordinary under the care” ercise cumstances, and, well-established court, governing action rules permitted to render a different we are not though might of us finding, even some upon a different conclusion
have reached
the evidence. must findings of trial court That the See, also, (2d) 68 S.W. 239. unless there is no evidence be sustained Bailey, Dallas, Joseph Jr., W. Chap- support them is held in the case Samuels, Foster, McGee, of Fort Brown & (Tex.Civ.App.) man v. First National Bank Worth, 498, many authorities. other S.W. Butler, Culbertson, tends, Ira Perkins strongly & evidence rather While the Culbertson, Worth, A. B. all of writer, support Fort appellant appellee. interposed the defenses bank, impelled by feel the force trial the law as findings court BROWN, Justice. judgment, it to affirm the understand appellant, Appellee, Billington, sued Joe accordingly so ordered. it is Insurance National Standard Life Com- charge of pany, on a slander in the district county. Tarrant court upon plaintiff original petition, in his trial, substantially went 1931, prior to December he was the that agent company, the defendant in Fort STANDARD NATIONAL LIFE CO. INS. v. Tex., Worth, supervision under the BILLINGTON. Broussard, presi- of Robert vice direction dent, No. 13262. McCormick, secretary, and E. Appeals Court Civil of Texas. Fort company; respectively, of Worth. November, discharged he was in the settlement of Dec. 1935. accounts be- Rehearing Denied Jan. 1936. him and the defendant tween controversy ensued which terminated filing of company, for certain commis- That after the suit for commissions sions. filed, and on Brous- McCormick made certain defam-' sard atory and slanderous statements concerning Noble, Bruner, and Phil G. G. Steve *2 fore, law, contemplation com- of there was which statements of Armón. The publication. substantially these: plaint made were said, (referring (1)Robert Broussard The cause was a and “Joe tried to suit, this you if dismiss plaintiff), to don’t special submitted, fifteen issues in sub- for penitentiary you the will send to we stance as follows: money belongs the to holding Out (1) Did statement: Broussard make the said:'“Yes, pany”; (2) E. McCormick “Joe, you if don’t this we holding dismiss will Pen- you the Federal and itentiary send to will you penitentiary send out to the for defraud”; mails to using the money belongs company?” the to will “You said: (3) Robert Broussard Answer: “Yes.” an- make a contract never be other to able (2) Was such in the statement made you long as insurance presence hearing and of Bruner? Glen company”; pending against this have and tiary, Answer: “Yes.” “Now, you peniten- put if the Joe, I (3) Was Broussard in the acting course you me, of because don’t think hard of his employment he made the when and, it,” “if you it; made me do caused statement? Answer: “Yes.” hard penitentiary, you go don’t think to the (4) Did McCormick make the statement: you settle me, get I to to of tried because and you “Yes will send the to federal it.” penitentiary using the mails de- to good that he bore a plaintiff alleged fraud?” Answer: “Yes.” the crime reputation and had been free of (3) Was such in the funds, of conversion of embezzlement and presence hearing and of Glen Bruner? de- mails to using and the States United Answer: “Yes.” fraud; that the statements it was (6) Was acting McCormick in the maliciously, with intent the were made course of employment? his name, char- injure plaintiff, good his the acter, reputation, injure and him and occupation; it and was further Did Broussard the statement: his business make “Now, Joe, you un- charges put penitentiary, were false and I alleged that the if in the me, true, you ma- falsely, willfully, and don’t think hard of were because caused thereof, it; it, you you go me if a result do liciously published, and as penitentiary, me, don’t be- damages in the sum think hard he actual has sustained get you the damages in cause tried to it?” settle Answer: “Yes.” $10,000. sum of (8) Was such statement made in the first trial on its went to defendant hearing of Glen Bruner? answer, which consisted amended of Answer: “Yes.” spe- and numerous a general demurrer acting Broussard course over- were exceptions, of which cial ruled; employment? his special and certain denial general specially pleaded that what- pleas. It was preponderance from you Do find the discussed between that, were ever matters time of the in the evidence at the the representatives of the plaintiff and conversation on matters which related were Hotel, defendant the affairs of Glen Bruner witness Worth any related' corporation, interest, directly and .conduct the acts to a solicitor under discussion? Answer: employee of involved company, and that since money, if any, if (11) What statements, corporation, such affairs you pre- now in do find from a paid cash made, privileged, and that were even if fairly would ponderance of any, discussions, had with reference if reasonably compensate could form basis matters damages, any, Billington, for the if Joe he action. cause of has sustained as result the state- ments, if have were made? pleaded It was answering question, To aid in on notwithstanding matters discussed that the occasion you may instructs affairs court the business related to business, plain- if acts consideration loss company and the into any, thereto, any statements, directly resulting from employee in relation tiff as they made, up having past in' the if were confined time, and also mental anguish, there- subject-matter, present interest in. the any, injury any, reputation, if to Therein it is said: “This kind of malice if loss of * * * character, destroys loss which overcomes and good name and his is, respect, course, his friends privilege, quite esteem distinct law,' may believe from neighbors, that which the in- the first *3 stance, imputes respect every and which past, if with has suffered in the defamatory in may charge, he will irrespective believe from the evidence of motive. future, It has been probability suffer in defined to be ‘indirect and reasonable anger, consider mere wicked motive but cannot which induces the defen- ” plaintiff.’ dant to or defame rage, resentment defendant. evidence is show insufficient to The cents, Answer in dollars and necessary malice is as to overcome find. privilege established, in this case. “$5,000.00.” Answer: undisputed testimony The of the witness (12) inquired Were statements about Noble is that when appellee, Billington, in issues 1 and made with malice? 7 left the hotel room where the conversation occurred all appel- shook hands and lee was laughing. “By “Malice” was defined as follows: ‘malice’, term in charge, as used Appellee testified with reference ill-will, motive, is mearit bad evil or or such remarks made him: “The remarks were gross rights indifference others so just ridiculous that saw it was as will or amount a willful wanton act.” “Well, drunken fool.” I saw that the re- marks that he inquired made were so about ridiculous that there in 4 was truth in issue didn’t made malice? Answer: mad, make me so as when he first said it.” exemplary charges Should be as- The entire record discloses that re- sessed? marks were a conference had for' purpose settling ap- a lawsuit that The dam- pellee brought against appellant had ages ? Answer: “$500.00.” pany, and undisputed testimony is On this verdict the trial court rendered agreed prepare that the officers and fur- judgment appellee against appellant appellee nish a statement as saw the}' appeal followed. matters in dispute appellee and that was error, eight assignments are There to prepare and furnish a statement cover- necessary but do not deem it to con- ing actually what he contended was due sider all of them. appears him. It appellee that The contention made that not dismiss his but that it was settled publication of the slander by parties. statements, they having ous been opinion We are the trial presence only of those who were em court should have judgment entered ployed by defendant, and therefore below, favor of the appellant privileged. supported This contention is here. by the evidence and the verdict the jury, judgment The of the trial court is rever- wherein it was found that words were judgment sed and 'is here rendered that presence only uttered in the of Glen Bruner appellee nothing against interest, Bruner directly n On Motion for Rehearing. discussion. Complaint pretermit is made that passing upon We the issue of opinion we made mention of privilege absolute and consider fact that the case be- to the suit for qualifiedly ap- fore us as commissions filed privileged, under the pellee against appellant, facts same adduced the verdict was not dis- missed but Bruner, parties. was settled the status of before whom the complained of were uttered. record, gathered We this from the 'error, are told we were in in that the in the case of Denver through case was contested the courts. Public Warehouse Holloway, Co. v. We do not think the erroneous statement Colo. 83 P. 3 L.R.A.(N.S.) us was material to in the case issue Am.St.Rep. 7 Ann.Cas. bar, cheerfully at but we withdraw it. announces the which we rule con believe disposition trols the case before rehearing us. motion for is overruled.