The Petition To The United States District Court
In The District Court Of The United States For The Northern District Of Texas
Foy E. Wallace, Jr.,Plaintiff,
Vs.
Dr.J.Frank Norris, Defendant.
To The Honorable W. H. Atwell, Judge Of The District Court Of The United States Of America In And For The Northern District Of Texas
Foy E. Wallace, Jr., a resident of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma brings this his complaint against Dr. J. Frank Norris, a resident of Ft. Worth, Tarrant County, Texas, to wit:
I.
Plaintiff would respectfully show your honor that heretofore to-wit on November 5th., and on November 6th., and on November 7th., 1934, Plaintiff and the Defendant engaged in a series of oral discussions involving the faith and belief of their respective churches; that the Plaintiff is a member of the Church of Christ and the Defendant is a member of what is commonly termed the Baptist Church and is the pastor of the First Baptist Church, Ft. Worth, Texas; that Dr. J. Frank Norris was representing the Fundamentalist Baptists and the Plaintiff represented the Church of Christ, and debated the following:
A. Christ will establish a literal throne in Jerusalem, and will reign over the whole earth for a period of one thousand years.
B. Jews, as a nation, will return to Palestine when Christ returns to the earth, and will then be converted to Christ.
C. A child of God, one who has been saved by the blood of Christ, can so sin as to be finally lost.
D. Baptism, to the penitent believer, is essential to his salvation from past, or alien sins.
II.
Your Plaintiff would further show that Dr. J. Frank Norris affirmed the first two questions, to-wit: A and B, and your Complainant affirmed questions C and D.
III.
Your Complainant would respectfully show the Court that approximately 40,000 people heard the discussions, and most of them were either members or followers of the Church of Christ or members of followers of the Fundamentalist Baptists, but probably thousands heard the discussions who did not believe in either faith or belong to either church.
IV.
Your Complainant would further show the Court that he believes that there is a great deal of difference in the teachings of the tenets, of the Church of Christ and of the teachings of the Fundamentalist Baptist, as revealed and taught by the Holy Bible.
V.
That on Tuesday, November 6th, 1934, and on Wednesday, November 7th, 1934, the Defendant caused to be distributed throughout the large assembly which was gathered to hear the oral discussions the envelope hereto attached, and marked Exhibit A., and on which is printed these words, "The regular price of the entire debate is $1.50, but a special price is now being made for $1.00, Enclose a dollar bill or check, name, street number, post office. Name ...................., Street Number ................, Town ....................... State ......................... That in response thereto hundreds enclosed the cash or check for said printed discussions when published, and the Defendant is now attempting to contract the publication of both oral speeches of said discussions in either pamphlet form or book form for sale, and has changed, deleted, and altered the discussions, the authorities, the text, the Bible references, and the context of the Plaintiff, or is attempting and threatening to change, alter, delete, and add to, the arguments of the Plaintiff and the arguments and debate of the Defendant, both as to form, subject matter, and sequence of speeches, and as so changed, altered, deleted and added to, the Defendant is attempting to publish and sell, or offer for sale, said oral discussions in whole or in part without the consent of this Complainant, and without the approval of this Complainant of said oral discussions as to form, substance and context in correct form,
VI.
Your Complainant would further show your honor that he has no objections to the Defendant's publishing and selling the discussions exactly as delivered, including the sequence of speeches, context, form and subject matter of said discussions, and the Defendant has no right, legal or equitable, to change, alter, delete, add to or omit from the speeches of the Complainant or his own, and has no right in law or in equity to sell or offer for sale without Complainant's approval even the correct transcripts of the oral discussions used by the Complainant and the Defendant, all of which he is attempting to do as shown by Exhibit A, being the envelope above referred to, hereto attached, and the telegram to the Plaintiff from the Defendant which is as follows:
"Rev. Foy E. Wallace care Jno. T. Smith Lubbock, Texas. Contract has been let and debate has been transcribed. Have only one copy and printers are under contract to deliver by certain time therefore hope you can come to Fort Worth to make corrections and changes in your address. Will pay your expenses to Fort Worth for this purpose. In case you cannot come please authorize one of your brethren to go over your addresses and make necessary corrections and changes you desire. Answer collect. J. Frank Norris"
120 4P
which is hereto attached, and made a part thereof.
VII.
Your Complainant would further show that he has never seen or been offered a copy of the transcript of said discussions which was prepared by the employees and the agents of the Defendant, nor has he been shown the galley sheets for proof reading before they were offered for publication, and offered for sale.
VIII.
Plaintiff would further show that it was agreed by and between him and the Defendant that neither party to said discussions that is, neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant, would publish or attempt to publish any part or any or all of the oral discussions without first furnishing to the opposite party a full and complete transcript, verbatim, of the full discussions of both sides, including also the sequence of speeches, which the Defendant is attempting to do over Plaintiff's objections, and without the Plaintiff's permission or consent and to his irreparable loss and damage, and without giving to Plaintiff the right to examine, correct and approve the original transcript of both discussions and galley sheets of same.
IX.
Plaintiff would further show that in the event the Defendant should publish incorrect, erroneous, incomplete, deleted copies and reports of their said discussion, which the Defendant is threatening and attempting to do, without giving this Plaintiff the privilege to see and correct the original transcript of all of said complete discussions, Plaintiff would suffer irreparable damage and loss, and the tenets of his church misjudged; that the publication rights of this Plaintiff in and to said discussions and debate with the Defendant, Dr. J. Frank Norris, to Plaintiff alone, which the Defendant is attempting to appropriate to his own benefit is of the value of $5,000.00, and the rights of the Defendant are of the same value to him and the total value of the publication in full of said discussions is $10,000.00, to which benefit the Plaintiff is entitled to and owns one-half; that the wrong caused and damage and loss suffered by Plaintiff by the publication of incomplete, inaccurate and deleted terms, words, and speeches in said debate, would be irreparable and said false, incomplete and inaccurate statements after being published cannot be recalled and Plaintiff demands the right to examine, correct and approve the whole of said original transcript, as to both speeches of Complainant and Defendant before the publication or sale of same; and before offer of same for sale by the Defendant, and to that end Plaintiff respectfully prays for a Restraining Order directed against the Defendant Norris, his servants; agents, employees, and those acting in concert with him and on hearing, that a permanent Injunction issue against the Defendant in favor of the Plaintiff as prayed for herein.
Plaintiff would further show that he intends to copyright his speeches in said discussion when Defendant furnished a complete transcript of same as agreed, but Defendant unlawfully withholds said transcript from the Plaintiff to his damage as aforesaid.
XI.
The Plaintiff would further show that he has no other adequate remedy at law to obtain redress of the Defendant by the Defendant's circulation of improper, erroneous, in correct and misleading versions of the transcript and arguments of the Plaintiff and Defendant, and that the Plaintiff will suffer immediate and irreparable loss and damage if this Writ of Injunction or Restraining Order is not issued immediately; that the Defendant has obtained no right or privilege to circulate, sell or offer for sale the discussions, speeches, and arguments of the Plaintiff, and has no copyrights of said discussions and no other rights therein, than the rights held and claimed by the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff prays your honor for your most gracious Writ of Injunction and Order restraining the Defendant, Dr. J. Frank Norris, from selling or offering for sale the speeches of the Plaintiff and Defendant delivered at the times and on the occasions above set forth; that the Defendant be restrained and enjoined from changing the speeches of the Plaintiff in any way or manner whatsoever either as to citations, authority, subject matter, form, context, substance and sequence of speeches; that Defendant be enjoined and restrained from accepting money or anything of value either directly or indirectly from the sale of speeches delivered by the Plaintiff; that he be restrained and enjoined from contracting for the publication of the said speeches of the Plaintiff until the Plaintiff is given a copy of the original transcript of his and said Defendant's discussions and speeches and arguments for absolute approval in every respect. The Plaintiff having never waived his rights to said discussions and speeches and having never given the Defendant the right to sell the same or offer the same for sale or to contract for the publication of same or to alter, change, delete, omit therefrom or add to same, he prays that said Injunction be made permanent.
Foy E. Wallace, Jr.
By. Nolan Queen,
Attorney for Plaintiff.