Fort Worth Press Co. v. Davis
Decision Date | 05 June 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 13389.,13389. |
Citation | 96 S.W.2d 416 |
Parties | FORT WORTH PRESS CO. et al. v. DAVIS. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; A. J. Power, Judge.
Action by W. D. Davis against the Fort Worth Press Company and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Judgment reversed and rendered.
Frank A. Ogilvie, of Fort Worth, for appellants.
L. J. Wardlaw and B. Y. Cummings, both of Fort Worth, and E. G. Senter, of Dallas, for appellee.
W. D. Davis, appellee, was mayor of the town of North Fort Worth, and subsequent to the annexation of such territory to the city of Fort Worth was elected mayor of Fort Worth and served several terms.
In the summer of 1934, appellee was a candidate, offering himself for the nomination of county judge of Tarrant county in the Democratic primary. During the campaign, as is customary with candidates for public office, and as appellee had the right to do, he spoke, publicly and privately, and pointed with pardonable pride to the public improvements and municipal achievements which were brought about during his administrations of office as mayor of the city of Fort Worth. These improvements and achievements were pointed to by appellee and referred to as "Monuments" of his administrations.
The Fort Worth Press Company, one of the appellants, for many years has been publishing an evening paper in the city of Fort Worth, known as the "Fort Worth Press." This paper was opposed to the election of appellee as county judge of Tarrant county and undertook to print, and did print, several articles designated as "editorials," in which it attempted to give publicity to some of the public acts and achievements had and done during the administrations of appellee as mayor of the city of Fort Worth, which were designated "Monuments Bill Davis Doesn't Talk About." It also published a bit of doggerel addressed to appellee.
Appellee was defeated for the nomination and in March, 1935, brought suit against appellants, the Fort Worth Press, S. R. Sheldon, and Roscoe Fleming, and also against the E. W. Scripps Company, alleging that these appellants, by the publication of articles and editorials referred to and the bit of doggerel that was published, had libeled him. Sheldon was the editor of said newspaper and Fleming the assistant editor thereof. Fleming was the author of the editorials and the bit of verse complained about.
Appellee alleged that the editorials and the bit of verse were libelous, that they contained false statements, and that they were actuated by malice; and he sued for both actual and exemplary damages.
Appellants answered that they were not actuated by any malice; that the facts set forth in the editorials were substantially true.
The cause was tried to a jury and was submitted on special issues. The verdict returned was favorable to appellants as to all matters complained of, save and except the first editorial and article which referred to what is known as "the settling basin," which was attempted to be constructed during appellee's tenure of office as mayor as a part of the system built for a water supply for said city. The editorial known as "Monument No. 1" is as follows:
This was incorporated in paragraph 5 of appellee's original petition, and the issues submitted concerning this editorial and the favorable answers thereto are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
And v. City of N. Liberty
...proven that he wasted $17,500 because there was "no more opprobrium" attached to wasting the greater amount. Fort Worth Press Co. v. Davis , 96 S.W.2d 416, 419 (Tex. Civ. App. 1936), cited with approval in Behr , 414 N.W.2d at 342. The Iowa Supreme Court has cited several other examples of ......
-
Dolcefino v. Turner
...judgment where defendant published statement that plaintiff embezzled $2,187.77 instead of $840.73); Fort Worth Press Co. v. Davis, 96 S.W.2d 416 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1936, writ ref'd) (charge that plaintiff wasted $80,000 of taxpayers' money held to be substantially true, even though ......
-
Turner v. KTRK Television Inc
...swindle -- with any less opprobrium than a 6.5 million dollar swindle.7 See McIlvain, 794 S.W.2d at 16; Fort Worth Press Co. v. Davis, 96 S.W.2d 416, 419 (Tex. Civ. App.--Fort Worth 1936, writ ref'd). Likewise, Judge Hutchison's order did not "cite" Page 124 of interest, as Dolcefino report......
-
First State Bank of Corpus Christi v. Ake
...substantial truth doctrine, citing Downer v. Amalgamated Meatcutters and Butchers Workmen, supra and Fort Worth Press Co. v. Davis, 96 S.W.2d 416 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1936, writ ref'd). We disagree, however, with the assumption that the inclusion of the $41,454.05 figure reasonably crea......