A. H. Belo & Co. v. Wren

• Decision Date: 19 December 1884
• Docket Number: Case No. 1050.
• Citation: 63 Tex. 686
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Parties: A. H. BELO & CO. v. T. L. WREN.

63 Tex. 686

A. H. BELO & CO.

v.T. L. WREN.

Case No. 1050.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 19, 1884.

APPEAL from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. E. B. Turner.

Suit begun in the district court of Travis county, February 7, 1880, by Wren, the appellee, against A. H. Belo, J. J. Hand and D. C. Jenkins, doing business under the firm name of A. H. Belo & Co., and who were proprietors of the Galveston Daily News. The petition, after formal allegations, proceeded to allege that, during the year 1877 and since, many forgeries were committed of deeds and transfers to land certificates in Texas, and the devices resorted to to accomplish these forgeries, by reason of the general interest they excited, had become known to the people of the state. That many prosecutions were made of guilty parties, in Travis county, and convictions obtained; that defendants had an agent and representative, J. E. Thornton, and a business office in the county of Travis. The petition alleged that one T. E. Tullis was known to be one of the persons guilty of forging land titles, and one Jesse Stancel was believed to be a professional forger.

The petition, after setting forth apt preliminary allegations, continued:

“And the said defendants, well knowing the premises and the matters and things hereinbefore alleged, but contriving and wickedly and maliciously intending to injure your petitioner in his said good name, fame and credit, and to bring him into public scandal, infamy and disgrace with and amongst all his neighbors and other good and worthy citizens of this state, and to cause it to be suspected and believed by said neighbors and citizens that petitioner had been and was guilty of forgery, and to subject him to the pains and penalties by the laws of this state made and provided against and inflicted upon persons guilty thereof, and to vex, harass and impoverish petitioner, heretofore, to wit:

On the 23d day of January, 1880, defendants being (as petitioner alleges) the publishers and proprietors of a certain newspaper known as and styled The Galveston Daily News, purporting to be and to have been published in Galveston city, in Galveston county, Texas, did falsely, wickedly and maliciously compose and publish and cause and procure to be published of and concerning your petitioner, and of and concerning the premises and matters and things hereinbefore alleged, in and by means of their said newspaper, and did falsely, wickedly and maliciously publish and cause and procure to be published of and concerning petitioner and the premises and things hereinbefore alleged, on the said 23d day of January, 1880, in the county of Travis and divers other counties and state of Texas, in and by means of their said newspaper, which defendants published, circulated and distributed, and caused and procured to be published, circulated and distributed, in said Travis and divers other counties, and amongst the good citizens thereof, a certain false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory libel, containing, amongst other things, the false, scandalous, malicious, defamatory and libelous matter following, of and concerning petitioner, and of and concerning the matter and things hereinbefore alleged, that is to say, purporting to make and publish a statement of the said Jesse Stancel; and defendants did publish, as true and correct, said statement of and concerning petitioner, and of and concerning the premises as follows, and having the heading and caption, ‘Land Frauds' (a part of and the heading and caption of said publication, meaning that said publication is and was a true and correct statement of and concerning petitioner, and of and concerning the premises and other things mentioned in said publication, and meaning that the said following statement is and was a true and correct statement of, amongst other things, forgery committed by petitioner as therein and hereinafter stated): ‘Jesse Stancel’ (meaning the said Jesse Stancel, and meaning that he, the said Stancel, was the author of the said statement which follows): ‘I’ (meaning the said Stancel, the speaker) ‘knew Tullis' (meaning the said T. E. Tullis) ‘in Galveston; I knew him here’ (meaning Austin, Travis county, Texas); ‘boarded with him in 1875, or in the same house with him. I know very little facts of what he was doing. I have, however, some little information of a transaction of his with a gentleman named Wren’ (meaning petitioner). ‘I think, in the summer of 1875, Tullis' (meaning the said T. E. Tullis) ‘and Wren’ (meaning petitioner) ‘were friends, together all the time. I will state the details so far as I know: In the summer of 1875, in July or August, Wren’ (meaning petitioner) ‘went away from here’ (meaning from Austin, Texas). ‘I saw him and Tullis' (meaning the said T. E. Tullis) ‘going to the Central depot together, and I was satisfied from intimations' (meaning statements) ‘of Tullis' (meaning the said T. E. Tullis) ‘that he’ (meaning petitioner) ‘was going away to fix up some crooked papers' (meaning thereby that plaintiff was going away to forge some title deeds to lands in the state of Texas). ‘He’ (meaning petitioner) ‘was gone about ten days. He’ (meaning petitioner) ‘came back here’ (meaning the said Austin), ‘and the same evening after he’ (meaning petitioner) ‘came back I met him’ (meaning petitioner) ‘and Dr. Tullis' (meaning the said T. E. Tullis) ‘and one or two others on the corner talking. He’ (Wren) (meaning petitioner) ‘was sporting a very fine suit of clothes, and he’ (meaning petitioner) ‘said he bought them in St. Louis' (meaning thereby that petitioner had made the money with which to purchase a very fine suit of clothes by committing forgery). ‘Some months after that I met Dr. Tullis' (meaning the said T. E. Tullis) ‘in the land office. He’ (meaning the said Tullis) ‘was looking on the map of Erath county. He’ (meaning the said Tullis) ‘pointed out to me a piece of land in the north part of the county of which I think he’ (meaning the said Tullis) ‘said Pace was the grantee; but I am not certain about it. I think it was a league survey, and he’ (meaning the said Tullis) ‘remarked that Wren’ (meaning petitioner) ‘had bought it during his' (meaning petitioner's) ‘trip, and they’ (Tullis and Wren) (meaning the said T. E. Tullis and petitioner) ‘had sold enough to pay the purchase money and what other expenses they’ (meaning said T. E. Tullis and petitioner) ‘had been to’ (meaning thereby the said Tullis and petitioner had been guilty of forging the title to said land therein described). ‘Dougherty, Connelly and Ammerman, of Dallas, were the agents for the sale. Some time after that there were some parties making mention to Wren’ (meaning petitioner) “about his' (meaning petitioner's) ‘having obtained that survey so easily. He’ (meaning petitioner) ‘said he’ (meaning petitioner) ‘went to Mississippi and there bought it from the heirs. I do not know anything about the papers' (meaning the title deeds to the above-mentioned tract of land). ‘My impression is that they were made by himself’ (meaning that petitioner had been guilty of forging said title deeds to the tract of land above described). ‘From a good many intimations I am satisfied that Wren’ (meaning petitioner) ‘and Tullis' (meaning said T. E. Tullis) ‘were working together’ (meaning that petitioner was a professional forger and was guilty of acting together with the said Tullis, a professional forger, in the commission of crimes as hereinbefore alleged of and concerning the said Tullis). ‘Question’ (meaning question asked the said Stancel). ‘Where is Wren’ (meaning petitioner) ‘now? I’ (meaning said Stancel) ‘suppose he is in Austin’ (meaning Austin, Travis county, Texas). ‘I do not know Wren's initials' (meaning petitioner's initials). ‘He’ (meaning petitioner) ‘is a young man. I would know him’ (meaning petitioner) ‘if I saw him’ (meaning petitioner). ‘His' (meaning petitioner's) ‘occupation was that of a land agent--rather in a quiet way.’

And now plaintiff avers that defendants, by all of said publication so made as aforesaid, meant, and that it was understood by all persons who read said statement to mean and did mean, that the statement so published by defendants was true, and that your petitioner was guilty of acting together with the said T. E. Tullis in committing the crimes as hereinbefore alleged of and concerning the said Tullis, and that petitioner had been guilty of committing the crime of forgery at divers and sundry times, and was and is a professional forger, and that petitioner held and claimed lands in the state of Texas under and by virtue of false and forged titles made and forged by petitioner.

And petitioner further says that the said newspaper and publication, published as aforesaid, was circulated and published to and amongst a great number of the good citizens of this state, in Travis and divers other counties in said state, and its contents was and were known, read and understood by said citizens. That by reason of the committing of the said wrongs and grievances by the said defendants as aforesaid, your petitioner hath been and is greatly injured in his said good name, fame and credit, and brought into public scandal, infamy and disgrace amongst his neighbors and other good and worthy citizens of this state, in so much that divers of those neighbors and citizens to whom the innocence and integrity of said petitioner in the premises were unknown, have, on account of the committing of the said grievances by the said defendants as aforesaid, from thence hitherto suspected and believed and still do suspect and believe petitioner to have been and to be a person guilty of forgery, and to have been and to be a professional forger; and have, by reason of the committing of the said grievance by the said defendants as aforesaid, from thence hitherto wholly refused and still do refuse to have any transaction, acquaintance or discourse with petitioner as they were before...