Munson v. Lathrop

• Decision Date: 21 May 1897
• Parties: MUNSON v. LATHROP ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

96 Wis. 386

71 N.W. 596

MUNSON

v.LATHROP ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 21, 1897.

Appeal from circuit court, Portage county; Charles M. Webb, Judge.

Action by I. G. Munson against the Western Union Telegraph Company and H. A. Lathrop. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, Lathrop appeals. Affirmed.John F. Cole, Quarles, Spence & Quarles, and George Lines, for appellant.

A. J. Smith and Cate, Sanborn, Lamoreux & Park, for respondent.

CASSODAY, C. J.

The amended complaint alleges, in effect: That at the times mentioned the plaintiff was a minister of the gospel and a member of the Lutheran Church, and in charge as rector of the Lutheran Church Society at Amherst, Wis. That November 5, 1894, there was a general election in Wisconsin. That November 7, 1894, the defendant Lathrop willfully and maliciously composed, wrote, and transmitted to the plaintiff by telegraph over the lines of the defendant the Western Union Telegraph Company, a foreign corporation doing business in this state, the false, libelous, and defamatory matter concerning the plaintiff following, with the innuendos omitted, to wit: “Night message. The Western Union Telegraph Co. Dated Marshfield, Wis., 11-7-1894. To Rev. I. G. Munson: The citizens of Wisconsin demonstrated you are an unscrupulous liar. A Marshfield Democrat.” That said Lathrop then and there willfully and maliciously delivered the said false, libelous, and defamatory matter, so composed and written, to the agent of the defendant company then and there in charge of its office at Marshfield, and duly authorized to receive and transmit the same, and then and there instructed the said agent to transmit the message by telegraph to the plaintiff at Amherst; and thereupon the company willfully and maliciously transmitted the same to the plaintiff at Amherst, and delivered the same to him in writing at Amherst. That the agents and servants of the company at Marshfield and Amherst saw, read, and wrote the said message, and that, in the manner set forth, the defendants willfully and maliciously published of and concerning the plaintiff the false, libelous, and defamatory matter aforesaid, to his damage. To such complaint the defendant Lathrop separately demurred upon the ground that it appeared upon the face thereof that the same did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against him. From the order overruling such demurrer, the defendant Lathrop brings this appeal.

We are constrained to hold that the message was libelous per se. Cranden v. Walden, 3 Lev. 17; Newspaper Co. v. Bennett [1894] App. Cas. 284; Hake v. Brames, 95 Ind. 161;Bradley v. Cramer, 59 Wis. 311, 18 N. W. 268, and cases there cited. It is contended that the complaint seeks to charge the two defendants jointly with the publication of the libel, and that it is insufficient for that purpose, and hence that the demurrer should have been sustained. Certainly there are authorities holding that a telegraph company may be held liable for sending libelous messages. Whitfield v. Railway Co., 96 E. C. L. 113; Peterson v. Telegraph Co. (Minn.) 67 N. W. 646. However this may be, it is well settled that the publication of a...