A. H. Belo & Co. v. Lacy

• Decision Date: 28 May 1908
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Parties: A. H. BELO & CO. v. LACY.

111 S.W. 215

A. H. BELO & CO. v. LACY.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

May 28, 1908.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; T. F. Nash, Judge.

Action by M. J. P. Lacy against A. H. Belo & Co. for libel. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.

By his petition appellee claims that on the 25th of March, 1906, in the Dallas Morning News, a newspaper owned and published in the city of Dallas, Tex., by appellant company, there was published by appellant, under the heading of "Local Courts," and under the subheading of "New Suits Filed," a suit theretofore filed in the Fourteenth district court of Dallas county, Tex., in the following manner: "The State of Texas v. M. J. J. Lacy, W. T. Strong, and the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, penalty for keeping a disorderly house." It is alleged that the M. J. J. Lacy meant appellee, and that the language "penalty for keeping a disorderly house" was a libelous statement; and appellee prayed for damages for publication of the same. By its answer appellant pleaded general denial, and that the publication as made was a full and fair report of a certain proceeding and suit, authorized by law, and in the administration of law instituted and filed by the county attorney against the appellee and other defendants in the district clerk's office in the county of Dallas, Tex., and so entered and recorded on the court docket for the district court in his said office, and that the same was published in due course and proper time as news, and without malice or comment. The case was tried to a jury, and in accordance with their verdict a judgment for $500 was rendered in favor of the appellee, from which judgment the appellant company has brought the case on appeal, and seeks to have same revised for the errors assigned.

It was shown by the evidence that M. J. P. Lacy was engaged in the saloon business in Dallas. Tex., and had executed a liquor dealer's bond, as required by law. The county attorney of Dallas county, Tex., filed a suit on the 24th day of March, 1906, in the Fourteenth district court of Dallas county, Tex., against the appellee and his sureties on his said bond, to recover statutory penalties for the several infractions of the conditions of the bond, which infractions were averred to be: (1) Failure and refusal to keep an open house or place for the sale of intoxicating liquors to be drunk on the premises, in that there was maintained and permitted to be maintained and used a screen or device, placed on the inside of the house or place of business, which obstructed the view through the open door to the place of business; (2) leasing or renting parts of the house for the purpose of and to be used as a place for running and conducting games prohibited by the laws of Texas, and for permitting games prohibited by the laws of Texas to be played, dealt, or exhibited in or about his house or place of business. On the same day of the filing of the petition with the district clerk, the district clerk, acting through his deputy, entered on his regular docket kept by him for that purpose, called "the clerk's file docket," the number of this suit, the day on which it was filed, the names of the several parties to the suit, and the name of the county attorney, who appeared for the plaintiff, and under the heading of the docket "Cause of Action" entered "penalty for keeping disorderly house." There were other cases against other parties, brought by the county attorney at the same time and filed on liquor dealers' bonds and entered, following this case, in the same way, by the clerk. On the afternoon of the day the case was filed and entered on the file docket the reporter of appellant, as was his custom, went to the clerk's office to get a report of the court's proceedings of the day for publication in the paper. The reporter, as was his practice, got such reports from the court dockets, and it included the proceedings of the day had in the court, and the new suits filed in the court during the day, which were published as general news. It was the custom of the reporter to copy from the dockets, and with the district clerk's permission, the written entries appearing thereon, and the statements thereon as to the result of the suits, the orders about the suits, and the object or nature of the suits. In the Fourteenth district court only civil suits were tried, and no criminal cases were tried. On the particular afternoon on which the suit in question was filed the reporter copied from the dockets of this district court the proceedings of the day in the court, and from the clerk's file docket the new suits filed during the day in this court. The reporter copied from the file docket the suit in question in words as it was written on the docket, and handed in to the appellant, for publication in its paper, all the proceedings, including this new suit in question, and same was published as handed in, without comment. In the regular issue of the paper, which was a morning daily having a large circulation in Dallas and over many counties in the state, there appeared and was published the suit in the manner following: "Local Courts. Fourteenth District Court. Hon. Thomas F. Nash, Judge. S. H. Broadnax et al. v. J. Grossman Sons Manufacturing Company; damages; judgment by agreement approved by the court. Mattie C. Peacock v. Horace J. Peacock; divorce; granted plaintiff. New Suits Filed. State of Texas v. Frank Sheplin, Colin Mayfield, Dan Stewart et al.; injunction. State of Texas v. M. J. J. Lacy, W. T. Strong, and Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland; penalty for keeping disorderly house. State of Texas v. Harry Smith, Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland; penalty for keeping disorderly house"—and several more suits or suits on bonds, all designated as having the same object of suit as the one in question. It was not proven that the reporter, nor appellant's officers, published the suit for any reason except as a general item of news. It was proven that the appellee never permitted lewd women to enter or remain or come in his place of business, and that the charge in this respect was untrue in fact. There was not shown malice on the part of the reporter or the officers of the company, nor negligence on the part of the reporter.

Crawford & Lamar, for appellant. T. L. Camp and Barry Miller, for appellee.

LEVY, J. (after stating the facts as above given).

The main contention in this case is to the effect that the publication was privileged under the statutes. This contention is raised under an appropriate and pertinent assignment of error. Looking to the evidence in the case, it is without conflict that the reporter of appellant, in the discharge of his duty to his paper, obtained from the regular clerk's file docket, kept by the district clerk of Dallas county, Tex., in his office as an official record, the matter published in the paper and in suit in this cause. The reporter made a verbatim copy from this record book, and the published matter was clearly shown to have been in all respects a true and literal copy. It was published as one of a number of suits, either filed, acted upon, or tried in the several courts in Dallas county on the day preceding the publication reported, and under appropriate headings, and without comment. It was proven there was no malice. Thus there is presented for decision in this case, first, the question as to the privileged character of the publication or report, under the libel law of this state.

It is provided in Gen. Laws Tex. (Acts 1901, p. 30, c. 26), as follows:

"Section 1. A libel is a defamation expressed...