Bradley v. Cramer

• Decision Date: 15 May 1886
• Citation: 66 Wis. 297,28 N.W. 372
• Parties: BRADLEY v. CRAMER AND OTHERS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

66 Wis. 297

28 N.W. 372

BRADLEY

v.CRAMER AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 15, 1886.

Appeal from circuit court, Rock county.

Libel. The article was held to be actionable per se, and the complaint sufficient on demurrer, for which see 59 Wis. 309, and 18 N. W. Rep. 268. The answer, in effect, admitted the publication of the article, January 4, 1882; that it was false in so far as it concerned or referred to the plaintiff, but denied that it was maliciously published, or that a certain portion of it was capable of the meaning ascribed to it. The answer also alleged, in justification and mitigation, several facts, among which were that a reporter on the Evening Wisconsin, the paper of the defendants, hearing of the suicide of the plaintiff's husband, December 25, 1881, investigated the same, and thereupon was informed of the facts stated in the article from those whom he believed to be reliable persons, and wrote and published the same as an item of news for said paper, in good faith and without the knowledge of any of the defendants, believing it to be true, and without any malice or bad motive, and that neither he, nor any of the defendants, had at the time become acquainted with, or heard of, the plaintiff or her said husband; that August 2, 1882, the defendants voluntarily published in all the editions of their said paper a retraction of the article. Upon the trial, the jury returned a special verdict to the effect (1) that said retraction was not published within a reasonable time after the defendants had knowledge that the libelous article had appeared in their paper, in view of all the facts and circumstances disclosed on the trial by the evidence; (2) that the words in the libel, in regard to the plaintiff's son receiving a salary, and being sent to school, taken in connection with other parts of the article, meant that the plaintiff had fraudulently taken from the Wheeler & Wilson Sewing Machine Company wages for her son that he had not earned; (3) that none of the defendants were actuated by any actual ill will, hostility, bad motive, or malicious feeling against the plaintiff in publishing the article in question; (4) that the damages sustained by the plaintiff “to her character and reputation, including mental pain, anxiety, and distress, we assess at $5,000;” (5) that the defendants had published the retraction for the purpose of repairing the wrong as far as possible; (6) that “we find for the plaintiff, and assess her damages at the sum of five thousand dollars.” From the judgment entered upon the verdict, the defendants bring this appeal.J. V. Quarles, for respondent, Hattie E. Bradley.

Finches, Lynde & Miller and Wm. Ruger, for appellants, William E. Cramer and others.

CASSODAY, J.

The charge to the jury was very lengthy. Numerous exceptions were taken to it. It is said to have dwelt upon matters not in issue, and upon facts which were wholly for the jury, in a sensational manner. Complaints are made as to the distinction drawn between slander and libel, and their effects; the description, definition, nature, construction, and value of character; the intrinsic worth of good character to the individual himself, when compared with great riches or silver and gold; and the reading to the jury an extract from the opinion on the former appeal, commenting upon the meaning of the article as a matter of fact, in explanation of the decision. These things and others are said to have misled and prejudiced the jury, and thereby augmented the damages. The view we have taken of the case renders it unnecessary to consider whether any of such portions of the charge involves error. An opportunity for elegant discourse is always tempting to genius and ability. But while some circumstances invite, others repel, the indulgence. To be apt, the expression must not only be accurate, but appropriate. A strict adherence to the case in hand is one of the highest qualities of juridical discussion. Such discussion is necessarily concise, direct, and restricted, rather than ornate. It is, moreover, cold, logical, pointed, and without superfluity.

The general verdict assessed the plaintiff's damages at $5,000, and in answer to the fourth question the jury assessed her compensatory damage at the same amount. It is said that, under the directions given to the jury, they were authorized and undoubtedly did include punitive damages. This is denied by counsel for the plaintiff. The jury were told that, “when a libelous article has reached the columns of a newspaper without the knowledge or approval of the proprietors, seriously reflecting on the character of an individual, and such proprietors, as soon as knowledge comes to them of its publication, make a full and complete retraction while they would be held responsible for all actual damages caused by its publication, although done without their knowledge, such retraction would go and should be considered in mitigation of anything in the nature of punitive damages. But should such publishers unreasonably delay such retraction, or attempt in any way to pervert its meaning, or substitute one calumny for another, such conduct would at least tend to aggravate the offense. Or if, when fully advised of the error, they should hesitate or refuse to correct it, the case might arise into one of premeditated wrong, and become a fit and proper one for exemplary damages.” In another place, after defining compensatory damages, and what they included, the charge continued: “While other damages are known and called exemplary, punitive, punitory, and sometimes vindictive. These last-named damages are only given when the conduct and acts of the defendants in the premises have been governed and controlled by hatred, malice, or ill will towards the plaintiff. Such malice is called express malice, and in such cases the jury may award exemplary damages to the plaintiff in addition to his compensatory, by way of punishment to the defendant, and to deter others in like cases from offending.” The two classes of damages are then illustrated in a variety of ways, when the court added: “And in this connection, I will say that the wealth of the defendants, or any or either of them, is entirely immaterial in this case, unless from the evidence under the instructions you find they are liable for exemplary damages. ” In connection with submitting the special verdict to...