Hoffland v. Journal Co.

• Decision Date: 02 October 1894
• Parties: HOFFLAND v. JOURNAL CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

88 Wis. 369

60 N.W. 263

HOFFLAND

v.JOURNAL CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 2, 1894.

Appeal from circuit court, Douglas county; R. D. Marshall, Judge.

Action for libel by Daniel Hoffland against the Journal Company. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Crownhart, Owen & Foley, for appellant.

Murphy & Bundy and Winkler, Flanders, Smith, Bottum & Vilas, for respondent.

ORTON, C. J.

This is an action for libel. The publication is as follows: “Spoiled a Sensation. An Alleged Shortage at West Superior. Settled by Bondsmen. West Superior, Wis., Feb. 6. A rather sensational feature was promised for the meeting of the county board this afternoon. It is alleged that there was a deficit of $2,500 in the accounts of Ex-Treasurer Dan Hoffland. The supervisors claimed that the books were short $2,500. It is claimed, however, for Mr. Hoffland, that this was for fees collected which belonged to the office, and not to the county. The matter was settled by the bondsmen before the meeting of the board.” The answer is in justification.

1. The defendant objected to any evidence under the complaint, on the ground that it stated no cause of action. The objection was overruled. There is no special damage alleged. There is an allegation that the words mean that the plaintiff was “guilty of having embezzled and converted to his own use $2,500, money belonging to the said county of Douglas.” The meaning of the words cannot be enlarged by innuendo. The publication is not actionable per se. It does not impute the crime of embezzlement. It is only, in effect, that there was a deficit in the plaintiff's accounts of $2,500. which he claimed were fees collected which did not belong to the county, but to the office; and this is not disputed in the publication. The matter was settled before it came before the board. There was no demand for the money, or for an accounting, or refusal to pay on demand, charged. The language is far short of embezzlement, or of any other crime. The objection should have been sustained.

2. The court directed a verdict for the defendant on the evidence, and did right in doing so. Whatever the charge was, it was more than proved true. The plaintiff failed to pay over to his successor, as clerk of the circuit court, $2,500, money in his hands, which his successor was entitled to receive from him on the 2d day of January, 1893, for about a month afterwards. His successor often requested him to pay over the...