Nehrling v. Herold Co.

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WINSLOW
• Citation: Nehrling v. Herold Co., 112 Wis. 558, 88 N.W. 614 (Wis. 1902)
• Decision Date: 07 January 1902
• Parties: NEHRLING v. HEROLD CO. ET AL.

112 Wis. 558

88 N.W. 614

NEHRLING

v.HEROLD CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 7, 1902.

Appeal from superior court, Milwaukee county; Orran T. Williams, Judge.

Action by Henry Nehrling against the Herold Company and Edgar W. Coleman. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action for libel. There was a trial before a jury. The evidence showed that prior to and during the month of June, 1899, the plaintiff was the custodian of the Public Museum of the city of Milwaukee, and that on the 5th day of June, 1899, the defendant Coleman composed, and the defendant Herold Company caused to be printed in the Milwaukee Herold and Seebote, an article in the German language, of which the following is a translation: “It is to be regretted that discord has arisen in the museum board, which, since last Saturday, promises to assume more serious consequences. In well-instructed circles it has long been known that Custodian Nehrling has behaved towards his superior officers in a manner which under ordinary circumstances would have been followed by his immediate dismissal. Only the circumstance that it was emphasized in his favor that he had a family to support brought about a vote of censure on the part of the board in its last meeting. At the proper time we were requested, in the interest of Nehrling and the museum board, not to publish anything about the circumstances mentioned below and others, and have complied with this request. Nehrling's blind friends are at fault if we bring to public notice the process of his intrigues and iniquities, as well as his indifference in the administration of his office. Those who know Nehrling's qualities of character have long prophesied that sooner or later he would come to his downfall. The complaints that are submitted against Nehrling are: (1) That he has never kept his office hours; that he would appear in the morning for an hour, and would not let himself be seen again until 2:30 to 3:00 p. m., to leave again after a presence of half an hour. This is confirmed by the subordinate officers. As Nehrling receives a salary of $2,500 per annum, the city has a right to demand that he keep his office hours. Just as well the city treasurer or comptroller or the water registrar might absent himself from his office for a certain time every day in order to follow his private interests. It is asserted that Nehrling believed he could occupy an exceptional position, as his bond is signed by Messrs. George Brunder and Gustave Wollaeger, and he relied upon the influence of these gentlemen to protect him and keep him in office. (2) Nehrling's bond of $1,000.00 expired about a year ago. As the value of the museum, in the course of years, had increased considerably, the museum board resolved to raise the bond to $5,000.00. Nehrling was requested to give the new bond in this amount. He had the same drawn, but arbitrarily, without the knowledge of the president and other members of the museum board, added to the reading of the bond that he, Nehrling, should be responsible for his subordinate officers. Let it be well understood, the board had passed no resolution to that effect, and knew nothing of this. (3) Nehrling thereupon went to Sen. Roehr, and informed him that the museum board had demanded of him to raise his bond from $1,000.00 to $5,000.00, and that it would be but right and equitable if he, Nehrling, was given the right to appoint his secretary and exercise control over the other subordinates. Nehrling delivered to Mr. Roehr a bill drawn to this effect, with the request to introduce it in the legislature. This declaration, Dr. Bartlett, president of the museum board, received when asking Mr. Roehr. Again, let it be well understood, Nehrling had done this without the knowledge of the president and other members of the museum board. The citizens are requested to compare points two and three, and they will find that Nehrling has made fools as well of Messrs. Brunder and Wollaeger as Mr. Roehr. (4) Messrs. George Brunder and Gustave Wollaeger have admitted to Dr. Bartlett that they have been deceived by Nehrling. (5) Nehrling has for some time, for unknown reasons, been suspicious against the assistant secretary of the museum, Mr. Charles Thal. Mr. Thal has been employed by the board for nineteen years, and asserts that he has never given Nehrling any cause for complaint. Nehrling has repeatedly been asked, by the president of the museum board, to formulate definite charges against Thal, if he had such to prefer. Nehrling, however, has refused to do so. Nevertheless he has tried, directly and indirectly, to bring about Thal's dismissal. (6) It cannot be ascertained whether it was Nehrling's evil conscience of not having performed his duties, or other possible reasons, which cause him to proceed in this unmanly way against Thal. It is added that Nehrling for some time past does not have personal intercourse, with Thal, or salute the latter, but places his orders and directions in writing on Thal's desk, and this when the latter is absent. Manly it would have been to inform the board of trustees of the reasons why Thal should eventually be dismissed, and not refuse so to do. About this there can be no discussion. The citizens will agree with us when we say that Nehrling's procedure is cowardly.” The following special verdict was rendered by the jury: “(1) Was the article set out in the complaint written by the defendant Edgar W. Coleman, and published by the defendant the Herold Company, in its daily paper called ‘Herold und Seebote’ on June 5th, 1899? Answer by court: Yes. (2) Were the charges of misconduct made of and concerning the plaintiff, which are contained in that article, substantially true? Answer: Yes.” Five other questions were submitted to the jury as part of the special verdict, as follows: “Third question: Was the article in question published by the defendants solely for the purpose of laying before the public the facts concerning a matter of public interest? Fourth question: Was said article published by the defendants in good faith, believing the statements therein to be true? Fifth question: Were the defendants, in the publication of said article, actuated by express malice against the plaintiff? Question 5a. Has the plaintiff sustained any damages by reason of the publication of the article in question? Sixth question: If the court should be of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment, at what sum do you assess his compensatory damages?” The court having instructed the jury that if they answer question No. 2 in the affirmative they need not answer any of the remaining questions, these latter questions remained unanswered. A motion to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, was overruled, and judgment for the defendants entered on the verdict, from which the plaintiff appeals.

Ernest Bruncken and Bohemrich & Maher, for appellant.

Timlin, Glicksman & Conway, for respondents.

WINSLOW, J. (after stating the facts).

The defendants moved that a verdict in their favor be directed in the trial court, on the ground that the action in question was not libelous, and they make the same contention in this court in support of the judgment in their favor. This contention will be first disposed of, before proceeding to the errors claimed by the appellant. At the time of the publication, the plaintiff was holding the office of custodian of the Public Museum, in Milwaukee, an office of trust, and involving a high degree of culture, education, and ability. He was appointed to his office by a board of trustees, and was subject to removal by such board. The article in question, in effect, charges him with such behavior towards his superiors as would ordinarily call for his dismissal from office; with intrigues and iniquities as well as indifference in the administration of his office; with qualities of character which must produce his downfall; and with never keeping his office...