Moore v. Leverett

• Citation: 52 S.W.2d 252
• Decision Date: 19 July 1932
• Docket Number: No. 1349-5902.,1349-5902.
• Parties: MOORE v. LEVERETT et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas

52 S.W.2d 252

MOORE v. LEVERETT et al.

No. 1349-5902.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

July 19, 1932.

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

Suit by W. S. Moore against W. W. Leverett and another. Judgment for defendants was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals in 83 S.W.(2d) 838, and plaintiff brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

W. S. Moore, of Gainesville, for plaintiff in error.

W. O. Davis and Adams & Jones, all of Gainesville, for defendants in error.

RYAN, J.

This suit was filed by W. S. Moore in the district court of Cooke county against W. W. Leverett and A. E. Hermann, owners and editors of a certain newspaper known as the Gainesville Signal, to recover actual and exemplary damages, for an alleged libel growing out of the publication in said newspaper of a certain article of and concerning said Moore.

The trial court sustained exceptions to the petition, and, plaintiff having declined to amend, rendered judgment for the defendants, which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 33 S.W.(2d) 838.

The petition alleged, in substance, that on or about July 16, 1926, plaintiff, Moore, was judge of the Sixteenth judicial district of Texas, composed of Cooke and Denton counties, was a man of good name, character, and reputation, and a candidate before the Democratic primaries held on July 24, 1926, for a renomination; his opponent being A. C. Owsley of Denton county, when defendants published in said newspaper, under the heading "The District Judgeship," an article signed by W. O. Davis.

Among other statements contained in said article was the following language, viz.:

"W. S. Moore, seems to think that he ought to be elected by the people because the lawyers are opposed to him. The lawyers are Moore's nearest neighbors and know more about him than anyone else. When did a man have the impudence to claim that he was entitled to an office because his neighbors did not have a good opinion of him? We should distrust the man who claims to have bad neighbors; the fault is generally with himself. It is no recommendation to a lawyer that other members of the bar have a poor opinion of him; they are familiar with his methods; they have been consulted by people who have had dealings with him."

It was alleged:

"That by said language above quoted from said article so published by the defendants, it was meant and intended to mean that the plaintiff had been guilty of dishonest and dishonorable conduct, and of dishonest, dishonorable and corrupt practices, as a lawyer, and that he had defrauded his clients and had engaged in criminal conduct towards the rights of his clients and their rights in his capacity as an attorney."

It was further alleged that there was used and published in said article the following additional language:

"I note that R. R. Bell, our former County attorney and now a resident of Oklahoma City, has rushed into print advocating the election of W. S. Moore. The people remember how R. R. Bell prospered as county attorney. W. S. Moore learned under him. Nothing more need be said."

It was averred:

"That by the use of the last above quoted language it was meant and was intended to mean and charge that the said R. R. Bell, who was at one time County attorney of Cooke County, Texas, and while acting as such, had been guilty of dishonorable, dishonest and corrupt conduct as such county attorney and that by such practices he had prospered illegally in a financial way, and that by use of said language it was meant and intended to mean that the plaintiff W. S. Moore had learned corrupt, dishonorable and dishonest practices as a lawyer from and under the said R. R. Bell, and that the plaintiff had been guilty of dishonesty and of improper conduct in his practice as a lawyer.

"The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants did publish all the above quoted language in said newspaper as above said of and concerning the plaintiff W. S. Moore and that all of the same was false and defamatory and untrue.

"Plaintiff further alleges that by the use of said language and by said language it was meant, and was intended to mean what is hereinabove alleged, and he further alleges that the meaning as hereinabove alleged of said language, was the meaning which the ordinary reader of said language would take and accept from the reading of the same."

It was further charged:

"That on account of and by means of the publication of the said false and defamatory words and language as above set forth, the plaintiff has been injured and damaged in his good name and reputation and that many people throughout the said Judicial district and the State of Texas, generally, unfamiliar with the facts, were led to believe, as was intended by said language so published that they should believe, that plaintiff had been guilty of dishonesty and corrupt practices and of defrauding his clients as a lawyer, and of defrauding other persons, and was generally guilty of improper and unbecoming and fraudulent conduct, and plaintiff alleges that by reason of the publication of said language he has been damaged in his reputation and has been damaged in the practice of his legal profession, and has suffered the loss of money on said account, and has been caused to suffer great humiliation and mental agony and distress and that he has suffered great mental distress and agony on account of the said wrongful acts of the defendants.

"Plaintiff further alleges that on account of the publication of said defamatory words and language, he has been caused to suffer loss and damage in his profession as a lawyer, and that by the publication of said words and language, which he alleges are false and untrue, but that he has suffered great damage otherwise, and he further alleges that the publication of said language and its misleading and damaging effect, caused him the humiliation of defeat for the office of District Judge of said Judicial district and the honor and emoluments of said office."

Also:

"That said language and words so published were not only not true, but that they were wilfully, maliciously and knowingly published by the defendants with intent to injure the plaintiff and deprive him of his good name and reputation and for the purpose of causing him to lose the esteem of his friends, neighbors and acquaintances and the public generally, and that said language was maliciously so published by the defendants without investigating the truthfulness of the statements therein contained and well knowing at said time that the said W. O. Davis was a bitter personal and political enemy of this plaintiff and had been so for many years, and plaintiff further alleges that at the time of said publication the defendant W. W. Leverett was also a bitter personal and political enemy of this plaintiff, and that said language was published and circulated with malicious intent to injure this plaintiff."

And:

"The use of the language herein above quoted in paragraphs 2 and 3 above and as published said language was intended to mean and did mean what was in said paragraphs alleged, and he further says that such meaning was the natural and ordinary meaning that would be given to it, and was...