Cranfill v. Hayden

• Citation: 55 S.W. 805
• Parties: CRANFILL et al. v. HAYDEN.
• Decision Date: 24 February 1900
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 805

55 S.W. 805

CRANFILL et al. v. HAYDEN.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

February 24, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Dallas county; Richard Morgan, Judge.

Action by S. A. Hayden against J. B. Cranfill and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

This suit was instituted by S. A. Hayden, in the district court of Dallas county, against J. B. Cranfill, J. B. Gambrell, J. M. Robertson, D. G. Wooten, G. W. Truett, H. C. Gleiss, C. C. Slaughter, T. J. Walne, J. B. Riddle, L M. Mays, W. H. Jenkins, J. M. Carroll, L. R. Millican, W. R. Maxwell, F. W. Freeman, R. T. Hanks, J. C. Burkett, Bennett Hatcher, J. B. Kimbrough, R. A. Lee, G. W. Baines, A. E. Baten, J. C. Gentry, and certain other persons as to whom the cause was voluntarily dismissed. The suit is for damages on account of alleged libelous publications. A recovery is sought for actual and exemplary damages. The petition represents that the plaintiff was a preacher of the gospel, belonging to the Baptist denomination of Christians, and the editor and proprietor of a religious newspaper, devoted to the interests of that denomination and the cause of the Christian religion. It is alleged that each and all of the defendants are members of churches in this state of the Baptist denomination, though not members of the same local church organization. It is alleged that each and all of the churches of the Baptist denomination are independent and sovereign, there being no general superior body clothed with jurisdiction to supervise and control the actions of the various churches or their members. It is shown that there existed a state Baptist organization, known and designated as "Baptist General Convention," which is a corporation created by and under the laws of the state; that its objects are missionary and educational, the promotion of harmony of feeling and concert of action among Baptists, and a system of operative measures for the promotion of the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom; that its membership is composed of messengers from regular Baptist churches, and associations of Baptist churches and missionary societies co-operating with the convention; that the church of which the plaintiff was and is a member, and the association of churches to which it belonged, were in harmony and good fellowship with the regular Baptist churches throughout the state and with the Baptist General Convention; that the Baptist General Convention met at San Antonio in November, 1897; that the plaintiff and each and all of the defendants were duly constituted messengers to that convention, and as such were entitled to seats in the convention, and to participate as members in the proceedings in that body; and that his right to membership and participation in said convention was challenged, and that he was prevented from exercising his rights as a member of said convention. It is alleged that the challenge related to his personal conduct and character, that the validity of his credentials as a messenger were not brought in question, and that the Baptist General Convention was without jurisdiction as to the subject-matter, the church to which he belonged alone having jurisdiction and authority over his personal conduct. It is charged that this challenge was in writing, that it was libelous in character, and that it was published—First, by the reading of it to the large membership of the convention assembled; second, by printing it in the minutes of the convention, and distributing copies thereof over the state and in Dallas county; and, third, by publishing it in the Baptist Standard, a newspaper published at Waco, and widely circulated over the state, including Dallas county. It is charged that said written challenge contained serious, damaging, and false accusations against him, reflecting upon his character as a man, a Christian gentleman, and Baptist minister; that this challenge was referred to a committee on challenges, and this committee, without investigating the truth of the charges, made a majority report, sustaining the challenge, and a minority report against the challenge; that, attached to the minority report, was a defense to the charges, prepared by the plaintiff. It is alleged that the minority report, including the defense of the plaintiff, entitled "My Reply," was excluded from each and all of the publications, and that had they been published they would have tended to relieve and exculpate him from the charges made. It is charged that all of the defendants published, or caused the publication of, the libelous matter, and it is further alleged that said libelous publications were made in furtherance of the objects of a conspiracy formed by and between said defendants to exclude the plaintiff from the convention, break down his influence and power as a Baptist minister and editor of a Baptist newspaper, etc.; that the publication of the libel injured his character as a man and Baptist minister, caused him to be deprived of his membership in said Baptist General Convention, and the rights and privileges incident thereto, and injured and impaired the value of his newspaper business, etc., to his actual damage, $50,000. Express malice in the publications is charged as the basis for the claim of exemplary damages in the sum of $50,000. The petition is very lengthy, and this statement is only designed to set forth the general essential features of the plaintiff's cause of action as asserted by his pleadings. The defendants answered by plea of not guilty and plea of privileged communication. In the plea of privilege it is substantially alleged that L. M. Mays, and all of the other defendants and plaintiff, Hayden, were messengers to the Baptist General Convention, at San Antonio, in the year 1897; that Mays was sent as a messenger by a Baptist association known as the "Austin Association"; that he, as such messenger, presented to the convention the challenge alleged to be libelous; that the challenge was submitted to the appropriate committee, which reported upon it, and that the defendants voted for the report of the committee, which recommended that said Hayden be denied a seat in the convention; that in presenting the challenge, making the report thereon, and in voting on the report, and in all other publications charged against them, they acted in good faith and without malice, and in the honest belief of the truth of the allegations contained in said challenge, and that it was their duty to the convention, themselves, and the Baptist denomination so to do; that the challenge and report thereon were presented at a regular business meeting in session, and that they were all regularly constituted messengers or delegates to said convention. The plea alleged, substantially, that everything done in the premises by the defendants was done in the honest belief in the truth of the matters contained in the challenge, and in good faith, without malice or ill will towards said Hayden, and in the honest belief that it was necessary for the protection of the interests of said convention, themselves, and the Baptist denomination. The plaintiff's pleadings set out in full the challenge constituting the alleged libel, and the majority and minority reports thereon, including the defensive paper prepared by the plaintiff, Dr. Hayden. The challenge did not question the validity or regularity of Dr. Hayden's selection as a messenger to the convention, but assailed his eligibility to membership in that body by reason of alleged hostility to its works and objects, public abuse and misrepresentation of its officers and agents, and personal unworthiness, as manifested by his course of conduct as stated. The minority report, with the attached reply of Dr. Hayden to the charges, questioned the jurisdiction of the convention over the subject-matter of the challenge, sought to refute the charges, and justify Dr. Hayden's course of conduct towards the convention, its officers and agents, and his Baptist brethren. The case was tried before a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff against all the defendants for $20,000 actual and $10,000 exemplary damages. The defendants have appealed.

Henry & Henry, Crane & Greer, G. G. Wright, E. Gambrell, and W. H. Jenkins, for appellants. Crawford & Crawford, Jos. E. Cockrell, S. H. Russell, D. A. Holman, and E. B. Muse, for appellee.

FINLEY, C. J. (after stating the facts).

The first contention made by the appellants is that the charge of conspiracy was not proven, and that the court erred in admitting in evidence the declarations and acts of certain defendants made in the absence of the other defendants, and in refusing to limit the effect of such evidence to each defendant whose declarations or acts were proven. If the premise be conceded that there was no evidence of a conspiracy, there can be no question but that the declarations or acts of one defendant, occurring in the absence of the other defendants, should only be treated as evidence against the particular defendant whose declarations or acts they were. It would be in contravention of the plainest principles of justice to hold one responsible for the declarations or acts of another, made or occurring in his absence and without his authority, when they had not collectively assumed the attribute of individuality, by conspiring together for the accomplishment of a common object. 3 Greenl. Ev. (6th Ed.) § 94. On the trial of the case, several witnesses were permitted to testify, over objections of the defendants, to declarations and acts of particular defendants occurring in the absence of other defendants. Witnesses Parks, Hayden, and Anderson were allowed to fully detail all that was said and done before the committee of challenges in relation to the challenge against Dr. Hayden. Some of the persons who composed that committee and took part in its proceedings are made parties defendant in this suit, but the larger number of the...