Ludwig v. Cramer

• Decision Date: 18 October 1881
• Citation: 53 Wis. 193,10 N.W. 81
• Parties: LUDWIG AND OTHERS v. CRAMER AND OTHERS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

53 Wis. 193

10 N.W. 81

LUDWIG AND OTHERS

v.CRAMER AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed October 18, 1881.

Appeal from county court, Milwaukee county.

ORTON, J., took no part.--[STATE REP.

J. C. McKenney, for respondents.

J. J. Orton, for appellants.

COLE, C. J.

The complaint is not very artistically drawn, but it clearly states a cause of action. It is alleged, in substance, that the plaintiffs are partners engaged in the practice of law in the city of Milwaukee, under the firm name of Ludwig & Somers; that the defendants are owners and proprietors of the Evening Wisconsin, a newspaper published in said city, having a large circulation; that the defendants, maliciously intending to injure the plaintiffs in their profession, and to expose them to public hatred and contempt, and cause it to be believed that they were unworthy of trust and confidence in the practice of their profession, published in said paper the false and defamatory article which is set forth. The article concerns the plaintiffs as partners in the practice of their profession, and they can join in the action as plaintiffs. That the publication is libellous there can be no doubt. It charges the plaintiffs with grossly unprofessional conduct in respect to their client, Sophia Bauer, whom they were employed to defend, in the municipal court of Milwaukee county, against the charge of the murder of her infant child. The imputation is distinctly made that, in the management of the case, they betrayed their client; compelled her to sign an order on her guardian for $75; and without any knowledge of the facts of the case hurried up her examination, and finally advised her to plead guilty to the charge made against her. But this is not all. The plaintiffs are not only charged with the failure to properly defend their client and of giving bad legal advice, but also of “betraying and selling innocence in a court of justice;” of doing that in their profession which should cause them “to be held up to the world as derelict in their sense of honor and obligation, unworthy of trust and confidence, and to be shunned and avoided.” It would seem unnecessary to observe that such language published concerning attorneys, touching their professional conduct, was grossly libellous. It clearly conveys imputations injurious to the professional character of the plaintiffs in the management of the cause with which they were entrusted; nay, more, it charges them with having betrayed the...