# Houston Press Co. v. Smith

> Court of Appeals of Texas · February 10, 1928 · 3 S.W.2d 900

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3919667

## Case

- **Full name:** Houston Press Co. v. Smith.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 10, 1928
- **Citations:** 3 S.W.2d 900
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum by Lane
- **Judges:** Graves, Lane
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3919667

## Opinion text

On Motion for Rehearing.
LANE, J.
Counsel for appellee has filed a motion for rehearing and therein our attention is called to the fact that in our original opinion we said: '
“The truth of the statement or statements, however, in such publications constitute a defense to such action
unless it be shown that such publications were prompted, by malice.”
Commenting upon the above statement, counsel said:
“We are unaware of any authority which lays down the rule here announced by this court. The Texas statute expressly provides that ‘the truth’ of the statement or statements, in such publication, shall be a defense to such action (Vernon’s Ann. Tex. Stat. art. 5431). Such defense is unqualified and absolute.”
We concede that the criticism is well founded. What we should have said was that statements conditionally privileged could not be made the basis of any action for libel without proof of actual malice. The writer, when making the criticized statement, must have had in mind the provisions of article 1269 of the Revised Criminal Statutes of 1925 (Code Cr. Proc.), which defines libel as follows :
“He is guilty of ‘libel’ who, with intent to injure, makes, writes, prints, publishes, sells, or circulates any malicious statement affecting the reputation of another in respect to any matter or thing pointed out in this chapter.”
With the explanation made, we refuse the motion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3919667. Public record. Not legal advice.