Buckstaff v. Hicks

• Decision Date: 22 September 1896
• Citation: Buckstaff v. Hicks, 94 Wis. 34, 68 N.W. 403 (Wis. 1896)
• Parties: BUCKSTAFF v. HICKS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

94 Wis. 34

68 N.W. 403

BUCKSTAFF

v.HICKS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Sept. 22, 1896.

Appeal from circuit court, Winnebago county; George W. Burnell, Judge.

Action by George H. Buckstaff against John Hicks.Judgment for plaintiff.Defendant appeals.Affirmed.

This is an action of libel, brought by plaintiff for an alleged libelous article printed in the Oshkosh Northwestern, March 19, 1889, of which paper defendant was publisher and proprietor.At the time of said publication, the plaintiff was state senator from the Nineteenth senatorial district, which comprised the city of Oshkosh and a large portion of the county of Winnebago.The legislature was at that time in session, and there were pending certain amendments to the charter of the city of Oshkosh.One George W. Pratt represented at that time the city of Oshkosh in the assembly.On the 18th of March, 1889, a public meeting was held at the council rooms in the city of Oshkosh, at which meeting the mayor and aldermen of the city were present, and also a number of citizens, and, among them, Assemblyman Pratt.At this meeting some consideration was given to the charter amendments pending in the legislature, and Mr. Pratt was called upon and made some remarks.Upon the following day, the defendant's newspaper published a report of said meeting, which was written by one of its reporters, and which contained the following paragraphs, which are the paragraphs claimed to be libelous in this action:

“When amendments had been disposed of, Assemblyman Pratt, who was present, was asked to give his opinion of the charter.”

“Mr. Pratt began by explaining the delay in the consideration of the charter bill by saying that he had been unjustly censured by the press, but he didn't care anything about that; he was used to it.It was his desire to secure the passage of the charter just as it came from the council, and he should do all in his power to have that done, though he was in the minority.He said the council had been shamefully treated by Senator Buckstaff and Mr. Schmidt, and advised the council to take a dignified stand in the matter, and, if the charter bill was killed, let the responsibility for it fall where it belonged.It was a bad state of affairs when a man like Senator Buckstaff, who was four-fifths of his time in a state of intoxication, could dictate to the common council what the charter amendments should be.”

The defense was substantially that the publication was privileged.It appeared uponthe trial that the newspaper in question circulated to a considerable extent outside of the city of Oshkosh.There was a conflict in the evidence as to the character of the meeting at which Mr. Pratt made his remarks, and also as to whether Mr. Pratt made any remarks involving the charge of intoxication.On the part of the plaintiff, the evidence tended to show that the meeting in question was a public meeting, which the mayor and council attended as citizens only; while on the part of the defendant there was evidence tending to show that it was a regular meeting of the mayor and common council, at which citizens were present.Some of the witnesses testified that Mr. Pratt made substantially the remarks attributed to him in the article in question, while others testified that he did not.It appeared that there was no record of any such meeting in the official records of the council proceedings of the city of Oshkosh.The court charged the jury to the effect that that part of the article which charged Senator Buckstaff with intoxication was libelous, and that the only question for them to determine was the amount of plaintiff's damages.The following proposed instructions were refused by the court, and exceptions taken: “If the jury believes that the report of the meeting of the common council held on the 18th day of March, 1889, at which George W. Pratt made an address, was fair and accurate, it is prima facie privileged, and your verdict should be for the defendant; there being no proof that it was published maliciously, being published solely to afford information to the public for the benefit of society, without reference to individual's concern, and there being no proof of malicious publication.”“The jury are further instructed that if the said published report of the said meeting of the common council was a fair and accurate account and report of what occurred at said meeting, and of what Pratt said, and language used by him concerning plaintiff at such meeting, while it will not avail as a defense, the jury may consider such facts and circumstances to mitigate the plaintiff's damages, if you find he sustains any by such publication.”The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at $1,250; and, upon motion for a new trial, the court ordered a new trial, unless the plaintiff remitted the sum of $750 from the verdict.The plaintiff having remitted said sum, judgment for $500 and costs was rendered in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appealed.

John W. Hume and A. E....