Hocks v. Sprangers

• Decision Date: 29 November 1901
• Citation: 87 N.W. 1101,113 Wis. 123
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: HOCKS v. SPRANGERS.

113 Wis. 123

87 N.W. 1101

HOCKS

v.SPRANGERS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 29, 1901.

Appeal from circuit court, Brown county; Saml. D. Hastings, Judge.

Action by Delia Hocks against Gerhard Sprangers. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.George H. Davis and Lyman E. Barnes, for appellant.

Wigman, Martin & Martin, for respondent.

CASSODAY, C. J.

This is an action of slander, commenced April 20, 1900. The complaint states four separate causes of action, and each alleges, in effect, that the plaintiff was and always has been a single female, of pure and chaste life, and had been in the employ of Rev. C. Delouw, a Roman Catholic priest, as housekeeper, at the town of Holland, in Brown county, for 16 years then last past, and that the defendant, maliciously intending to injure the plaintiff in her good name, fame, and credit, and to bring her into public scandal, infamy, and disgrace with and among her neighbors and the public, and to cause it to be believed by them that she had been guilty of unchaste, lewd, and lascivious conduct, and of improper intimacy with one Rev. Van den Elzen, did falsely and maliciously speak of and concerning the plaintiff, in the presence and hearing, and at the places and at the times, respectively, therein mentioned, the false, scandalous, and defamatory words (omitting innuendoes): (1) “Miss Delia Hocks is pregnant and is soon to become a mother, and that young fellow [Rev. Van den Elzen] is the father.” To Daniel R. Curtin, at the town of Holland, February 23, 1900. (2) That: “She is knocked up, and does not want us to see her. The priest's nephew [Rev. Van den Elzen] is the father of the child.” To Daniel R. Curtin, at the town of Holland, March 29, 1900. (3) That: “Father Delouw does not want us to see the housekeeper [plaintiff]. She is in the family way.” To Joseph Wolfinger, at the city of Kaukauna, March 1, 1900. (4) That: “Have you heard the news from Hollandtown? The servant [plaintiff] goes to Freedom, because there is something loose. She is burnt. The servant is over the half when she was sick. I lay the fault on the young priest.” To Martin Verkuylen, at Forest Junction, March 2, 1900. The defendant, in answer to each of said four causes of action, admitted that the plaintiff is and always has been unmarried, and had been for several years then last past housekeeper for Rev. C. Delouw, a Catholic priest, at the town of Holland, and alleges, in effect, that at each of the dates mentioned the plaintiff was pregnant of a bastard child; that for 20 years then last past the defendant had been a farmer, residing in that town, and a member of the church mentioned, and a regular attendant and a liberal giver to the support and advancement thereof, and a firm believer in the faith, and sincerely desirous of promoting the welfare thereof; that his wife and 11 children all resided at his home, and were members and regular attendants at the church; that the priest's household consisted of the plaintiff, a younger girl as assistant, and the priest's nephew, Rev. Van den Elzen, mentioned in the complaint, who was at the time a Catholic priest; that at the several dates named the church edifice was being rebuilt, and a large number of workmen were constantly employed thereon, some of whom were frequently at the house of the priest; that about the times alleged he had a confidential conversation with Daniel R. Curtin, Joseph Wolfinger, and Martin Verkuylen, respectively, mentioned in the complaint, and members of the building committee, and prominent members and regular attendants at the church, as to what he had heard from another member of the church as to something wrong going on at the priest's house concerning the plaintiff, which was liable to injure the church, and was disagreeable to the members thereof, and especially shocking to the defendant's wife and daughters; that he and Curtin were vitally interested in the unfortunate event, and had the conversation with the view, if practicable, to formulate some plan for the prevention of a church scandal and the eradication of the further cause thereof; that at and prior to the time of such conversation the matters were of common rumor and report among the members of the congregation, and that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe, and did believe, that such rumors and reports were true, and that at the times of such conversations the defendant was informed and verily believed that the plaintiff was guilty of fornication, and was then pregnant of a bastard child; and that whatever he said of or concerning the plaintiff was said in the full belief of its truth and verity, and in good faith, in the interest and for the benefit of his family and church, and the members thereof, and not from any motive of malice toward the plaintiff. The answer also alleges as mitigating circumstances, and by way of mitigation of any damages the plaintiff may be entitled to, all the facts and matters thereinbefore set forth, and repeats and restates, all and singular, such facts and matters, and that the defendant would give evidence in mitigation as well as justification. At the close of the trial the jury returned a verdict wherein they found for the plaintiff, and assessed her compensatory damages at $1,545, and punitive damages at $500, making in the aggregate $2,045. From the judgment entered thereon the defendant brings this appeal.

1. Error is assigned because the court refused to sustain an objection to any evidence under the fourth cause of action set forth in the complaint, on the ground that the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The complaint alleges that the words were spoken in the Holland language, and that, on a true translation thereof into English, are and were meant and understood to mean as stated in the complaint. Had a regular demurrer been interposed to that cause of action, it would probably have been sustained. But a pleading is to be more liberally construed when the objection is first raised by demurrer ore tenus. Here it was not raised until what constitutes 29 printed pages of testimony had been taken on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had called and examined two witnesses, including the defendant, who had testified to the effect that in his conversation with Verkuylen at Forest Junction, alleged, he had said: “Have you got the news from Hollandtown? There is something going on,”--“something loose.” That “she looked big in the abdomen.” “She looked like a woman that was in the family way,” and that he told Verkuylen “that she looked that way.” That he had “heard that she was going to Freedom.” That “the servant [that is, the maid] is over half when she was sick.” “That she looked about halfway.” That he did not say in that conversation with Verkuylen that he laid the blame on the young priest, but said he “heard that it was from a workman.” Such evidence was given without objection. It tended to make certain the ambiguous translation alleged in the complaint. Besides, as indicated, in answering that cause of action, it is alleged, in effect, that the plaintiff was then “pregnant of a bastard child”; that at the time of his conversation with Verkuylen the defendant was informed and believed that the plaintiff was guilty of fornication, and was then...