Law : : Justia. 22. S. W. 2d 4. 99 (1. Allied Artists and Monogram Pictures were responsible for countless quality films. Law of the Panhandle (1950) 243. Law of the Valley (1944) 244. 228 S.W.2d 499 (1950) FITZJARRALD v. Supreme Court of Texas. Rehearing Denied April 19, 1950. Law of the Panhandle (1950).mkv 0; Resolution 640x480; Time 54:59; Size 824 MB; Rating 0, Like, Dislike; Copy to Favorites; Share; Parameters; Report. Zobacz Law of the Panhandle online - ca Overview of Law of the Panhandle, 1950, directed by Lewis Collins, with Johnny Mack Brown, Jane Adams, Riley Hill, at Turner Classic Movies. Law of the Panhandle (1950) - informacje o filmie w bazie Filmweb.pl. Oceny, recenzje, obsada, dyskusje wiadomo FITZJARRALD. v. A- 2. Supreme Court of Texas. February 2. 2, 1. Rehearing Denied April 1. Hamilton & Deaver, Memphis, Sam J. Hamilton, Memphis, for petitioner. W. Bragg, Memphis, Sanders, Scott, Saunders & Smith, Amarillo, Albert Smith, Amarillo, for respondent. SHARP, Justice. This is a libel suit, filed by J. Fitzjarrald against Panhandle Publishing Company, Inc., to recover actual damages in *5. The jury found that petitioner was entitled to actual damages in the sum of $1. No exemplary damages were awarded petitioner. Judgment was entered by the trial court in favor of Fitzjarrald for the sum of $1. Court of Civil Appeals at Amarillo. That court reversed the judgment of the trial court, and rendered judgment in favor of respondent. S. W. 2d 6. 35. Petitioner alleged that at the time of the publication of the articles by respondent in its newspaper, The Amarillo Times, concerning petitioner, he was county attorney of Hall County; that said articles complained of were libelous, and were published with intent to injure him, and for the purpose of subjecting him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule, and, further, for the purpose of impeaching his honesty, integrity, and reputation, both as a private citizen and as a public official; that said statements published by respondent were false, defamatory, malicious, libelous, and therefore damaging to him, and were willfully and maliciously published with express malice towards petitioner, and for the purpose of inferring by innuendo that petitioner was wholly unfit to serve Hall County as county attorney. Petitioner further alleged that there was no just cause for respondent to make such vicious, false statements about him. Respondent answered, in substance, that the publications about which petitioner complains were privileged, or at least conditionally privileged, in that they were a fair and reasonable report and comment about a matter of public interest and concern, and that such statements were published by respondent without malice, for general information, at a time when petitioner was serving as county attorney and was running for re- election, and that such publications do not create a cause of action for libel. Respondent also alleged that the matters complained of were true, or that respondent, after a careful conscientious inquiry in Hall County, believed them to be true at the time of their publication, and that the articles were not maliciously published, nor were any of the statements published with malice or wrongful intent, or with any intention whatever to injure petitioner. It was further alleged that the contents of a letter that Raymond Ballew sent to some 2. Hall County on April 1. Hall County. It was further pleaded that the statements complained of had been given wide publicity in Hall County generally, both in writing and orally, before such statements had been published in The Amarillo Times. The facts of the case grew out of a political race in Hall County. During the year 1. Raymond Ballew, a long- time resident of Hall County, had been several times convicted in the county court of that county for violating the Liquor Law, for which he paid fines totalling more than $8,0. He had announced for Sheriff of Hall County against the incumbent, Earl Hill. Raymond Ballew was conducting a vigorous campaign for the office of sheriff, and was attacking the manner in which the alleged law violators had been apprehended, and the manner in which the Hall County Court had been conducted. Ballew mailed out approximately 2. Hall County, all of whom were running for re- election. A copy of this letter was sent to The Amarillo Times, and upon receipt of the letter two reporters were sent to Memphis, the county seat of Hall County, to check upon the letter and the political situation in that county. The reporters interviewed Ballew, Sheriff Hill, and several other citizens, including some Negroes. They tried to interview petitioner, but he declined to discuss with them the Ballew letter or the charges made therein. The management of The Amarillo Times thought the subject matter furnished a news story of interest to the public, and as a result published the three articles in question, along *5. Petitioner based his claim upon the three articles published respectively on April 2. April 2. 9, 1. 94. August 9, 1. 94. 8. Only a portion of the article published on April 2. This article and the Ballew letter are set out in their entirety in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, 2. S. W. 2d 6. 35, and to save space they will not be repeated here. The trial court submitted to the jury in paragraph 3 of its charge certain portions of the article published on April 2. They declared sheriff's officers and the county attorney pay almost nightly visits to the hill. They said that Fitzjarrald once fired several shots close to the feet of a negro just to scare him.' is set out in paragraph 8 of the plaintiff's second amended original petition is, as a matter of law, a libel of the plaintiff J. Fitzjarrald, and that malice on the part of the defendant, Panhandle Publishing Company, is imputed as a matter of law, to the defendant unless the defendant, Panhandle Publishing Company establishes by the greater weight of the evidence introduced in your hearing that the material charges appearing in such article relating to the plaintiff, J. Fitzjarrald, are substantially true, that is, are true in substance. From the greater weight of the evidence introduced in your hearing, do you find that the material charges appearing in the newspaper article mentioned in paragraph 3 of this charge relating to the plaintiff, J. Fitzjarrald, are substantially true? How much actual damage do you find, if any, should be awarded to the plaintiff, J. Fitzjarrald, by reason of the publication of the article of April 2. Answer in dollars and cents. Respondent also presented many exceptions to the trial court's charge, including the questions, explanations, and definitions. Respondent attacked the judgment of the trial court on the ground that neither the article nor any part thereof was libelous, contending that the article and every part of it was at least conditionally privileged; and, further, that the sole condition of whether the article was privileged is based upon whether it was published and circulated by respondent with actual malice towards petitioner. The jury found that the article had not been published and circulated by respondent with actual malice towards petitioner. Respondent contended in the Court of Civil Appeals that in view of such finding the trial court erred in not rendering judgment for respondent. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the article and every part of it referred to the acts of petitioner and other officials, and that it was conditionally or qualifiedly privileged, and that in view of this holding and the finding of the jury that no actual malice existed, it reversed and rendered the judgment of the trial court. The trial court limited its question only to the alleged libelous statements appearing in the newspaper article copied in paragraph 3 of its charge; and since *5. Court is limited to a consideration of the language contained in paragraph 3 of the court's charge. The question presented here is whether the language printed without actual malice justifies the recovery of a judgment for libel in favor of petitioner and against respondent. The Legislature of this State announced the rule as to what constitutes libel by the enactment in 1. Article 5. 43. 0, of Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, 1. Article 5. 43. 2, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, 1. Acts 2. 7th Leg., chap. Acts 3. 6th Leg., chap. Acts 4. 0th Leg., chap. This article now reads in part as follows. A reasonable and fair comment or criticism of the official acts of public officials and of other matters of public concern published for general information. The law protects the right of a citizen to defend his reputation and good name from libelous publications, and this right is zealously guarded. Garrett Engineering Co., 1. Tex. 5. 1, 1. 70 S. W. 2d 1. 97; Belo & Co. The law does not give newspapers the unrestricted right to publish statements about officers that are untrue and false, and in construing this law the courts have held that, . Webster, Tex. Com. App., 2. 60 S. W. When a person is a candidate for a public office, and while he holds such an office, he thereby places his character in issue, in so far as his qualifications for the office are concerned. His character and fitness to hold the office are matters of public concern, and are proper subjects for discussion and fair and reasonable comment, which may be published for general information. Wilkins, Tex. Civ. App., 2. 18 S. W. Civ. App., 4. 9 S. W. 2d 1. 10. 7, writ dismissed; Light Pub. Huntress, Tex. Civ. App., 1. 99 S. W. App., 1. 6 S. W. 2d 3. Tex. Com. App., 2. S. W. 2d 1. 53; Cooksey v. Mc. Guire, *5. 04 Tex. Civ. App., 1. 46 S. W. 2d 4. 80; Houston Printing Co. Hunter, Tex. Civ. App., 1. 05 S. W. Supreme Court 1. 29 Tex. S. W. 2d 1. 04. 3; 2. Tex. The rule is also established in this State, . Garrett Engineering Co., 1. Tex. 5. 1, 1. 70 S. W. 2d 1. 97, 2. 04. Article 5. 43. 2 now specifically provides that the publication of certain matters by any newspaper or periodical . The law also recognizes that an enlightened citizenry is necessary to maintain an honest and efficient government, and those who vote for candidates for office are entitled to have the facts relating to such candidates' character and fitness to hold office. In this case petitioner was County Attorney of Hall County, and was a candidate for re- election. It is undisputed that a bitter political fight was in progress in that county, as is convincingly shown by Ballew's letter. While Ballew was running for the office of sheriff, his letter shows that the candidate for the office of county attorney was also a target for his statements. In his letter he said: .
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |