Guisti v. Galveston Tribune

• Decision Date: 13 November 1912
• Citation: 150 S.W. 874
• Parties: GUISTI et al. v. GALVESTON TRIBUNE.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 874

150 S.W. 874

GUISTI et al. v. GALVESTON TRIBUNE.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 13, 1912.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of First Supreme Judicial District.

Action by Pietrina Guisti and another against the Galveston Tribune. There was a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (134 S. W. 239), reversing a judgment for plaintiffs and rendering a judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Judgment of Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and judgment of trial court affirmed.

Marsene Johnson, Geo. G. Clough, and Aubrey Fuller, all of Galveston, for plaintiffs in error. Wm. B. Lockhart, of Galveston, for defendant in error.

DIBRELL, J.

This suit was brought in the district court of Galveston county on June 14, 1909, by Pietrina Guisti, at the time an adult unmarried woman, against the Galveston Tribune, a private corporation, to recover damages alleged to have been incurred by reason of a certain publication made in the columns of the Galveston Tribune a daily paper published and circulated in the county of Galveston and in other portions of the state. Pending the suit, plaintiff intermarried with Amerigo Collucci, who was made a party plaintiff pro forma. The cause of action was based upon the following publication, to wit: "As stated in the Tribune Friday evening, one of the first licenses issued by the city since Aug. 1st for the conducting of a corner grocery saloon within the residence section prohibited by the districting ordinance was to T. Guisti to sell liquor at 902 Mechanic street. One of the main objections to this saloon previous to the passing of the ordinance was its close proximity to the State Medical College, and the allegation that the proprietor of the place violated the provisions of the Baskin-McGregor Law [Acts 30th Leg. c. 138] and the conditions of his bond by selling liquor to students. With the reopening of the barroom the complaints to the dean of the college have been again renewed and a personal investigation of the place by a representative of this paper this morning revealed the following facts: The place is open as usual for business, and when the reporter called, liquor was being sold over the bar, together with lunch, in fact at the time a man was standing at the bar drinking a bottle of porter and eating a sandwich. The proprietor of the place was not present, but a young woman behind the bar, in answer to the question as to whether or not students were patrons of the place, stated in an excited way that `she was going to tell Dr. Carter to put bells around the necks of the students, so they could tell who they were.' `When we ask young men if they are students, they get mad and tell us that it is none of our business. We can't tell, and we are here to do business.' Asked if there had been any sales to students since the place reopened, she admitted that there had been and that it took place on Saturday morning. `Two young men came in and asked for some wine. They told me they were not students, and I sold them what they wanted; and after they had drank it they said they were students and laughed.' On the door leading from Ninth street into the barroom annex, on the wall facing the door, and behind the bar, are signs printed by hand on white cardboard with the following words: `No liquors of any kind sold here to students.' The young woman pointed to these signs and stated that they were put there on Saturday evening for the students to read themselves when they came in. Asked if she was not familiar with the provisions of the law regulating such sales, and that dealers are supposed to know whether customers are students or not, she answered `that she did not know for sure,' but that `they did not want to sell to students.' It is set forth in all liquor dealers' bonds, among other things, that the bond is conditional that the principal, agent or employé will not sell or permit to be sold or given away any spirituous, vinous or malt liquors, or medicated bitters to a student of any institution of learning.' It is also stated by legal authorities that ignorance of this law or of the fact that the dealer or employé cannot tell who a student is does not in any manner excuse; they are supposed to know their customers, and in case of doubt to take the safe course and refuse to sell. The place named above has been complained of, and it is understood from neighbors that the students inclined to patronize such places are attracted there for some reason. On two of the opposite corners are located corner groceries which formerly had bar annexes, but neither of them have as yet renewed their licenses. A woman in charge of one of the places stated this morning that she did not intend to take out a license, as she realized that the time was short when the place would be allowed to exist, and she was satisfied to continue her other business without beer."

Plaintiff's petition contains all the allegations essential to establish her cause of action against the defendant for damages for the publication of a libel, unless the publication aided by pertinent innuendoes fails to constitute libel as it is defined by the statutes of this state. The allegations of innuendo made in aid of the charge of libel summarized are that the "young woman" referred to in the publication meant and was by defendant intended to mean plaintiff; that the words, "The proprietor of the place was not present, but a young woman behind the bar, in answer to the question as to whether or not students were patrons of the place, stated in an excited way that `she was going to tell Dr. Carter to put bells around the necks of the students, so they could tell who they were.' `When we ask young men if they are students, they get mad and tell us that it is none of our business. We can't tell, and we are here to do business.' Asked if there had been any sales to students since the place reopened, she admitted that there had been, and that it took place on Saturday morning. `Two young men came in and asked for some wine. They told me they were not students, and I sold them what they wanted; then after they had drank it they said they were students, and laughed,'" defendant meant and intended to mean and published that the plaintiff was behind the bar, meaning the barroom; and that defendant thereby meant and intended to mean and publish that plaintiff was offering for sale and selling and had sold intoxicating liquor in a barroom to students of an institution of learning in violation of law and that she was a common barmaid. That by the use of the language in said publication, "The place named above has been complained of, and it is understood from neighbors that the students inclined to patronize such places are attracted there for some reason," defendant meant as an addition to other matters quoted that plaintiff was used by her father as a barmaid in said barroom for the purpose of attracting medical students and other persons there for patronage; and meant, and was intended to mean, by the defendant, that plaintiff was a person of loose morals and a person addicted to lascivious conduct and that she (this plaintiff) was an attraction placed in said barroom by her father to entice and attract said medical students and other persons into said barroom; and that said published words meant, and were by defendant intended to mean, that this plaintiff was an unchaste woman.

The insinuations alleged to be deducible from the publication that plaintiff was a barmaid engaged in the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors and a person of loose virtue were alleged to have caused damages, general and special, in the following language: "The published statement of defendant that plaintiff was a barmaid, serving and selling intoxicating liquors in a common barroom, caused her to lose the respect and esteem of her neighbors and acquaintances in the community in which she lives; and that said published statement of defendant that she (said plaintiff) was aiding, abetting, and conniving at violations of the law regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors in the state of Texas impeached her integrity and caused an ill opinion of her in the community in which she lives, and caused her to sustain damages by reason of the injury to her reputation as a woman of integrity, good conduct, and good demeanor in the community in which she lives, and caused her to suffer much mental anguish and humiliation. * * * And caused her to sustain special injury and damages to her reputation as a woman of good morals, good conduct, good propriety, and virtue, and caused her to suffer much mental pain,...