
    POTTER v. STATE.
    (No. 7654.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 7, 1925.)
    Libel and slander <§=>152(1) — Indictment for libel, alleged contained in long article, failing to point out particular language claimed to be libelous, defective.
    Where alleged libel is contained in article of 12 typewritten pages, part of which is not libelous, indictment which fails to point out particular language claimed to be libelous by innuendo averments or otherwise, -held defective.
    Appeal from Bexar Comity Court for Criminal Cases; Nelson Lytle, Judge.
    E. N. Potter was convicted of libel, and he appeals.
    Reversed and dismissed.
    R. R. Smith, of Jourdanton, for appellant.
    W. H. Russell and A. N. Moursund, both of San Antonio, and R. Gv Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted, in the county court of Bexar county for criminal cases, of libel, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $200. In view of our disposition of this case, it is not deemed necessary to recite the facts.

It is believed that the learned trial judge fell into error in not granting appellant’s motion in arrest of judgment. The complaint and information in this ease set out an article some 12 typewritten pages in length, which is alleged to have been printed in a newspaper published by appellant and circulated in Bexar county, at the end of which article it is stated as follows:

“Meaning and intending to convey by the aforesaid language that * * * was dishonest and therefore unworthy of such office.”

In the first part of the information it was set out that “ * * * was a candidate for office.” There nowhere appears in said pleading any innuendo averment, or explanatory or directory statement, as to what part or particular language, used in the lengthy article referred to, is asserted to be that which imputed dishonesty; to said candidate. That the major part of said article does not contain such language is evident from inspection; in fact, if any of said article so states, it is a matter of inference and conclusion, and this court has often held that it is not enough to set out such lengthy articles containing much matter which is clearly not libelous, but that there should be innuendo, explanatory, or directory averment, so that the accused primarily, and the courts before whom he has been haled secondarily, may focus their attention on the very language deemed objectionable, and prepare and try the case with such pointed issue before them, and that they may not be compelled to seek here and there or try out this vagrant expression or sift those dubious words in an effort to arrive at what may be finally claimed by the prosecutor as the libelous utterance. Nordhaus v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 40 S. W. 804; McKie v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 544, 40 S. W. 305; Byrd v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 630, 44 S. W. 521; Squires v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 96, 45 S. W. 147, 73 Am. St. Rep. 904; Potter v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 380, 216 S. W. 886.

The complaint and information failing to point out by such necessary averment the particular language claimed to be libelous, the state’s pleading is bad, and the judgment will be reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.  