Democrat Pub. Co. v. Jones

• Decision Date: 09 February 1892
• Citation: 18 S.W. 652
• Parties: DEMOCRAT PUB. CO. v. JONES.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

18 S.W. 652

DEMOCRAT PUB. CO. v. JONES.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 9, 1892.

Commissioners' decision. Section B. Appeal from district court, Dallas county.

Action for libel by F. B. Jones against the Democrat Publishing Company. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Pendleton, Chapman & Powell and A. T. Watts, for appellant. Robertson & Gray, for appellee.

TARLTON, J.

February 2, 1888, the appellee, F. B. Jones, instituted this suit in the district court of Dallas county against Thomas Witten and the Democrat Publishing Company, the latter as the owner and publisher of the Fort Worth Daily Gazette. The suit was subsequently discontinued as to Witten. The plaintiff sought to recover the sum of $15,000, as general damages, and the sum of $2,000, as special damages, on account of the publication, on July 18, 1887, in the newspaper named, of the following alleged libelous matters: "He Didn't Come Back. Yesterday morning a well-dressed stranger of slight build, dark complexion, medium height, about 40 years of age, went into the Ellis Hotel, registered as F. B. Jones, Dallas, and walked in to breakfast. After finishing his meal he went into the office, paid for it, and walked across the street to Witten's livery stable, where he ordered a horse and buggy, remarking that he wanted to go out to Mr. Cooper's. No questions were asked him by the man in charge, who harnessed up one of the best horses in the stable, a small bay, and hitched in front of the hotel, where the stranger was in waiting. He jumped in and drove off, without attracting any particular notice. This was between 8 and 9 o'clock, and up to midnight the man had not returned. Mr. Witten was reluctant to think that there was any crookedness in the case, but, as hours wore away, and his team still failed to show up, he grew uneasy, and communicated the affair to the police. It was not practicable to make any extended search last night, but unless his outfit is forthcoming at an early hour no effort to find it will be spared. The buggy was of Milburn make, nearly new, with white running gear, and the horse one that could carry a man a long way in the course of a day. Scrutiny of a Dallas directory failed to reveal any such name as F. B. Jones. Though the case wears a suspicious look, the man may yet turn up and make a satisfactory explanation, but he will find a wrathy gentleman to explain to in the person of Capt. Thomas Witten." The plaintiff declared on the publication in connection with innuendoes as follows: "He Didn't Come Back. Yesterday morning a well-dressed stranger of slight build, dark complexion, medium height, about 40 years of age, [which is a good description of this plaintiff, and which innuendo was intended to mean and did mean that petitioner was not named F. B. Jones, but was passing under an assumed name for the purpose of aiding him to commit successfully the theft of a horse, afterwards in said article charged,] went into the Ellis Hotel, registered as F. B. Jones, Dallas, and walked in to breakfast. After finishing his meal he went into the office, paid for it, and walked across the street to Witten's livery stable, [where plaintiff says he had often hired teams and vehicles before,] where he ordered a horse and buggy, remarking that he wanted to go out to Mr. Cooper's, [which house plaintiff says is only 6 miles from Fort Worth, and where he had often before gone with teams from this same stable, and where this plaintiff's wife was then stopping.] No questions were asked him by the man in charge, who harnessed up one of the best horses in the stable, a small bay, and hitched in front of the hotel, where the stranger [meaning plaintiff, and again indicating that he had registered and was under an assumed name, and that F. B. Jones was not his right name] was in waiting. He [meaning plaintiff] jumped in and drove off without attracting any particular notice, [which was intended to mean and charge, and did mean and charge, that plaintiff's intention was to steal said horse and buggy, and that he desired and did get away without attracting notice to him, as a thief would naturally do.] This was between 8 and 9 o'clock, [meaning A. M.,] and up to midnight the man had not returned, [meaning plaintiff, and that, if his intentions had not been to steal the horse and buggy, he would have returned with them by that time.] Mr. Witten was reluctant to think that there was any crookedness in the case, but as hours wore away and his team still failed to show up he grew uneasy, and communicated the affair to the police, [whereby defendants meant to charge, and did charge and mean, that there was crookedness in the case, and that said Witten believed, and defendants believed, that plaintiff had stolen said horse and buggy, and run away.] It was not practicable to make any extended search last night, [which was intended to mean, and did mean, that this plaintiff had stolen said horse and buggy, and should be searched for by the police and other officers of the law, and arrested for said offense,] but, unless his outfit is forthcoming at an early hour, no effort to find it will be spared, [which meant if this plaintiff did not voluntarily return said property, which he was charged to have stolen, at once, that extraordinary efforts would be made to find it where plaintiff might have concealed or disposed of the same.] The buggy was a Milburn make, nearly new, with white running gear, [which minute description of said buggy, as of the person of the plaintiff, and of said horse, as in said communication contained, was given as well to emphasize the guilt of plaintiff as charged, and to aid the officers of the law reading same, and other persons, to apprehend plaintiff as the thief who had stolen said horse and buggy,] and the horse one that could carry a man a long way in the course of a day, [which was intended to mean, and did mean, that plaintiff had stolen said horse, and was by that time a long way from Fort Worth, and that he should be sought for by the officers of the law in the light of that information.] Scrutiny of a Dallas directory failed to reveal any such name as F. B. Jones. Though the case wears a suspicious look, [which meant that the circumstances and facts related in said publication showed plaintiff had stolen said buggy and horse,] the man [meaning plaintiff, and reiterating that he was using a name not his own] may yet turn up and make a satisfactory explanation, [which meant and charged that the facts and circumstances showed that plaintiff had stolen the horse and bugy, but that plaintiff might explain them away,] but he will find a wrathy gentleman to explain to in the person of Capt. Thomas Witten."

Appellant answered by general demurrer, two special exceptions, a general denial, and, specially — First, that the publication was justified by the occasion and made in good faith, upon the statement of reliable and responsible persons, and was believed true; ...