Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-12-01

were thought Of in Texas, ever contem-)
plated the extraordinary latitude to be
given under it to plaintiffs In this peculiar
c.sss Of cases. It is but necessary to
state the practical effect of this rule 10
convince the impartial mind that 1t is IN
just and oppressive. Under II & plaintiff
suing TIE GAZETTE or any other daily
paper of statewide circulation in Texas
is enabled 10 choose his jurisdiction
from all the counties in the state. He
may bring his suit IN Bowie, or in Ell
Psso county, in Oldham, or in Cameron,
SIS his own interests may demand. It is
obvious thst system which gives juris-
diction Ct any cause, anywhere the
plaintiff may see f. to prosecute
1t Is Wrorg, and in practical operation
intolerable. The general rule, as stated
by Judge Willie, is that the defendant
must be sued in the county of his resi-.
dence. The exception within which libel
suits are brought by his Interpretation,
provides that where the foundation Of the
suit is some crime, or offense or ties
pass, the suit may be brought either in
the county Of the defendants residence
or where the ofrense was committed. Un-
der technical rule, which our supreme
court did not originate but simply fol.
lowed, the offense Ct libel is committed
wherever the publication is circulated.
The intention Of the exception was wise
and equitable. 1t is probable that the
immediate e5ec. Of the legislature
related to suits against railroads, which,
at the time ct the passage of this enscts
ment as now, constituted the bulk Of
damage suits before the courts. The
reason for it WAS that wherever the suit
had it's foundation would be the most in
expensive and natural plsce to try it,
because Of the presence on the ground Of
witnesses.
The natural construction OF theIstatute
gives venue to but two plans, in cases to
which 1t relstes. That was undoubtedly
the intention OF the law.mskers. What
ever may be the technical in
depreciation of the term COMMITTED"
the plain common sense idea, which
very probsbly controlled the legislature,
is that it Involves single transaction,
capable Of performance in but single
place. The gist Of the offsnse in libel
lies in the printing of the obi sctionsble
matter. Under the rule adopted by the
supreme court Of Texas 1t seems that the
plaintiff may not only sue in either but
in eoeJy county In the state II he chooses.
His rights are not even limited to this,
but he may institute separate suit for
eveIy copy tha! is printed and circulated
Of the paper in which the offensive mat
ter appears. That such is legitimate
deduction from the decision referred to
will appear from the following extract:
The fact that the crime Of libel may have been
completed by publication Of The paper in Gal
weston county does not make 1t any lees crime
to circulate the number containing the alleged
libeloLs art Gle in other places. By the COM
mon law THE SALE OF EACH COPY is DIS
IISCT PUBLICATION AND HENCE DISTINCT
oFFENsE, and the prosecutor may at least
choose for which OF the distinct ofenses he
will Call the guilty party to account. A copy of
the paper may be first sold to a, then one to B,
then another to c, but because the publ
cation is completed by selling to the
government is not bound TO select that
particular fact as the one upon which
It Will rely to prove the completion
of the offense. It may indict for either of the
sales. = Under our penal code EACH
ACT of either making, publishing or circulat-
ing lib al being a separate cffense, we must
hold that the circulation Of the News" con-
tair ing the libelous matter in Travis county
WAS such an offense, NO MATER WHAT MAY
HAVE BEEN DONE WITH REFERENCE TO 1T IN
THE COUNTY OF GALVESTON.
The statute makes the proceedings
analogous in criminal and civil prosecu-
ton of suits within its scope.
The court holds that 1t spplies to
actions for libel. The inevitable conclu-
sior, broadly limited at by Judge Willie, is
that as each act OF circulation (thst is
each copy sold Of paper containing
l!belous matter is separate criminal Of
tense, it is also G separate civil offense.
It Is no reply to the demand for q just
law upon the subject Of venue in libel
suits that they have never been, as they
might be, subdivided and scattered
the state. The possibility of
such oppressive proceedings should not
exigt for moment. It is neither impos-
sihle nor improbable that political or bust
less cliques should at some time be
termed to hsrrass and destroy paper
which might become an obstacle to the
Of their designs.
1. is not just that the plaintiff should
be permitted to use his own pleasure in
any case, in selecting county in which
TO sue. Venue should be arbitrarily
fixed, in this instance, as II is in all other
Instances. The complainant may have
peculiar reasons for bringing the suit in
particular county. He may have politi-
cal, or financial or social influence there
which will secure for him consideration
beyond the merits Of the case. II may