Court Opinion

ID: 9829354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:14:46.16637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:00.296915
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The defamatory statements made in the petitions circulated by appellees were not published to prevent the granting of a liquor license, or for the purpose of revoking one. Had the petitions been circulated and then placed before the comptroller at a time when a request for a liquor license was pending before that officer, or if they had been made and presented to procure a revocation, a different case would have been presented. A revocation of appellant's liquor license was not sought, and he had made no application for a license to sell liquor. The petitions would have been just as pertinent, and the petitioners would have had the same right to plead privilege, if appellant had been running a grocery store instead of a saloon, and appellees had conceived the idea that he might at some time in the future desire a liquor license. This answers the excerpt from 25 Cyc. 389, and the other authorities are not in point that are cited in the motion. All of them are in regard to petitions or reports on matters pending before lawfully constituted authorities.
In order to remove any doubt as to some language used in our former opinion, we hold that the communications circulated by appellees' were not absolutely or qualifiedly privileged, and that the only defense to any defamatory matter that may he contained in them is the truth of such matter, i
The motion for rehearing is overruled.