That this is the law, we do not believe any one will question. Following are a few of the many cases which we believe control the case at bar: Quaid v. Tipton, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 131, 51 S.W. 264; Caylor v. Nunn (Tex.Civ.App.) 235 S.W. 264; Express Publishing Co. v. Keeran (Tex.Com.App.) 284 S.W. 913; Enterprise Co. v. Wheat (Tex.Civ.App.) 290 S.W. 212; Enterprise Co. v. Glenn (Tex.Civ.App.) 290 S.W. 806; Ray v. Times Pub. Co. (Tex.Com.App.) 12 S.W.2d 165; Belo Co. v. Fechner (Tex.Civ.App.) 42 S.W.2d 641; Lundberg v. Brownsville Herald Pub. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 66 S.W.2d 375. The statements found in the article complained about come squarely within the provisions of article 5432, Rev.Civ.Statutes, as amended by Acts 1927, c. 80, ยง 2 (Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 5432), and the publication thereof is "deemed privileged" by us.
(3) We agree with appellant that each party to a suit has the right to have an affirmative submission of all issues made by his pleadings and supported by his evidence, and that a denial of that right constitutes reversible error. Enterprise Co. v. Glenn (Tex.Civ.App.) 290 S.W. 806. But under this proposition the trial court did not commit reversible error by refusing appellant's requested charge, as follows: