Eviston v. Cramer

• Decision Date: 28 November 1879
• Citation: 3 N.W. 392,47 Wis. 659
• Parties: EVISTON v. CRAMER and others
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

3 N.W. 392

47 Wis. 659

EVISTON v. CRAMER and others

Supreme Court of Wisconsin

November 28, 1879

APPEAL from the County Court of Milwaukee County.

Action for libel. The newspaper article upon which the action was based, and which is set out in the complaint with matter of inducement, innuendoes, etc., is of considerable length, and will be omitted here, as its general purport is sufficiently stated in the opinion. Defendants demurred to the complaint as not stating a cause of action, and appealed from an order overruling their demurrer.

Order affirmed.

J. J Orton, for the appellants.

For the respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Cottrill Cary & Hanson.

OPINION

ORSAMUS COLE, J.

In support of the demurrer it is insisted that the publication set out in the complaint is not upon its face libelous. In that view we are unable to concur. It seems to us that the obvious tendency of the publication was to disparage the character of the plaintiff and bring him into public ridicule and contempt. Undoubtedly the whole article should be considered together, in order to determine its character. If we so consider it, it charges or states, in substance, that the plaintiff, while acting as the official sealer of weights and measures, and as inspector of scales in and for the city of Milwaukee, made a practice of "tampering" with such weights and scales, for the purpose of increasing the fees of his office. This is the meaning or sense which a person would naturally attach to the language used in the article upon reading it. There are particular instances given of what is called in the article "tampering with" or "doctoring" the weights and scales of individuals by the plaintiff, while in office, for the purpose of increasing his fees.

Now that such statements are prima facie prejudicial to plaintiff, calculated to degrade him in public estimation and bring him into public hatred and contempt, seems too plain for discussion. Nor are the injurious consequences of the publication neutralized or destroyed because the charges were made against the plaintiff after the expiration of his term of office, as "ex-sealer of weights and measures;" for surely to charge a man who has held an office that he performed the duties of such office from corrupt and dishonest motives, in order to obtain unlawful fees, necessarily tends to expose him to the scorn and contempt of every right-thinking person.

But it is further insisted in support of the demurrer, that the publication in question is privileged; that it was but a fair criticism by a public journal upon the conduct of a man while holding a public office; and that this was a matter of such public interest and concern as...