Connellee v. Blanton
Decision Date | 13 December 1913 |
Citation | 163 S.W. 404 |
Parties | CONNELLEE v. BLANTON. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; W. W. Beall, Judge.
Action by Thomas L. Blanton against C. U. Connellee. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.
See, also, 163 S. W. 407.
D. G. Hunt, of Eastland, and J. J. Butts, of Cisco, for appellant. J. F. Cunningham, of Abilene, and Stephens & Miller, of Ft. Worth, for appellee.
C. U. Connellee has appealed from a judgment against him in favor of Thos. L. Blanton by which plaintiff, Blanton, was awarded damages for libel alleged in plaintiff's petition. The case was tried by the court without the aid of a jury, and the trial judge filed findings of fact, which appear in the record, and none of which is assailed by appellant. The charge of libel was based upon statements contained in a letter or application, signed by defendant, addressed to Gov. O. B. Colquitt at Austin, Tex., for the pardon of one George Parvin, who had been convicted of aggravated assault upon J. R. Stubblefield. The conviction was in the district court of Callahan county, and Parvin's punishment had been fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for two months and the payment of a fine of $250, together with costs of suit.
The application for pardon contained the statement that the assault was committed in the presence of Hon. Thos. L. Blanton, the district judge who tried the case; that the assault at most was only a simple assault and should have been tried in the justice court of Eastland county, and thus prevented an accumulation of costs by reason of a great number of friends of the party injured having been induced to go to Baird where the case was tried and their attendance charged up as costs of suit. The application contains this statement: In plaintiff's petition in this suit the language used in the application, "the judge changed the venue of the case for the purpose of making the costs excessive," was alleged to be untrue and written and published with actual malice on the part of the defendant without any foundation whatever, and was libelous. The trial judge sustained those allegations in full, and upon that finding rendered judgment in plaintiff's favor for actual damages in the sum of $3,000, which was the full extent of the judgment. One of the conclusions filed by the trial judge reads: "The court has a discretion not to award any exemplary damages, even though said letter was written and published with actual malice, and exercising such discretion, awards none."
This suit was instituted and tried in the district court of Eastland county, and Hon. W. W. Beall, district judge of the Thirty-Second judicial district, presided at the trial. Eastland county is one of the counties which composed the Forty-Second judicial district, and plaintiff, Hon. Thomas L. Blanton, was district judge of that district. The following order entered upon the minutes of the district court of Eastland county during the January term, 1913, of that court is the only showing in the record touching the authority of Hon. W. W. Beall to preside at the trial:
Trial of the case was once postponed by Judge Beall upon the written agreement of the parties that he might do so, and, in the trial court, the only challenge of his authority to hear and determine the suit was made after judgment rendered and in appellant's motion for a new trial.
In support of an assignment of error presenting the same question here, appellant invokes article 1676, Revised Civil Statutes 1911, which reads: "Whenever any case or cases, civil or criminal, are pending, in which the district judge is disqualified from trying the same, no change of venue shall be made necessary thereby; but the judge presiding shall immediately certify that fact to the governor, whereupon, the governor shall designate some district judge in an adjoining district to exchange and try such case or cases, and the governor shall also notify both of said judges of such order; and it shall be the duty of said judges to exchange districts for the purpose of disposing of such case or cases, and, in case of sickness or other reasons rendering it impossible to exchange, then the parties or their counsel shall have the right to select or agree upon an attorney of the court for the trial thereof." Section 11, art. 5, of our state Constitution, provides: "And the district judges may exchange districts, or hold courts for each other when they may deem it expedient, and shall do so when required by law." Article 1715 of the Statutes is as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ramstead v. Morgan
... ... Co. v. Taber, Tex. Com.App.1921, 235 S.W. 841 (letter in answer to complaint filed before Railroad Commission); Connellee v. Blanton, Tex.Civ.App.1913, 163 S.W. 404 (application to Governor for pardon); Higgins v. Williams Pocahontas Coal Co., 1927, 103 W.Va. 504, 138 ... ...
-
Kocontes v. McQuaid
... ... It was customary for the sentencing judge to forward such a letter to the board. And in Connellee v. Blanton, 43 the court held that absolute privilege applied to allegedly libelous statements in a prisoner's application for pardon to the ... ...
-
State v. Falkenhainer
... ... Connellee v. Blanton (Tex. Civ. App.) 163 S. W. 404 ... 2. The compaint board is a governmental agency created for the express purpose of ... ...
-
Clark v. Jenkins
... 248 S.W.3d 418 ... Paul Martin CLARK and Black Citizens for Justice, Law and Order, Inc., Appellants, ... Gladys Elaine Blanton JENKINS, Appellee ... No. 07-06-0385-CV ... Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo ... February 22, 2008 ... Rehearing Overruled April 3, ... at 243 ... In Connellee v. Blanton, 163 S.W. 404 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1913, writ ref'd), the court extended the absolute privilege recognized under the common law for ... ...