Ruhland v. Cole

• Decision Date: 04 October 1910
• Parties: RUHLAND v. COLE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

143 Wis. 367

127 N.W. 959

RUHLAND

v.COLE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 4, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sauk County; E. Ray Stevens, Judge.

Action for libel by Charles Ruhland against H. E. Cole. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the first and second causes of action, and overruling a demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action, both parties appeal. Order sustaining the demurrer affirmed, and order overruling the demurrer affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Among other references upon the part of the plaintiff were the following: Scofield v. Milwaukee Free Press Co., 126 Wis. 81, 105 N. W. 227, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 691;Pfister v. Sentinel Company, 108 Wis. 572, 84 N. W. 887;Moley v. Barager, 77 Wis. 43, 45 N. W. 1082;Muetze v. Tuteur, 77 Wis. 236, 46 N. W. 123, 9 L. R. A. 86, 20 Am. St. Rep. 115; Monson v. Lathrop, 96 Wis. 386, 71 N. W. 596, 65 Am. St. Rep. 54;Buckstaff v. Viall, 84 Wis. 129, 54 N. W. 111;Hamlin v. Fantl, 118 Wis. 594, 95 N. W. 955;Dabold v. Chronicle Pub. Co., 107 Wis. 357, 83 N. W. 639;Robertson v. Edelstein, 104 Wis. 440, 80 N. W. 724;Elmergreen v. Horn, 115 Wis. 385, 91 N. W. 973;Benedix v. German Ins. Co., 78 Wis. 77, 47 N. W. 176;Werner v. Ascher, 86 Wis. 349, 56 N. W. 869.

Among other references cited upon the part of defendant were the following: Smith v. Utley, 92 Wis. 133, 65 N. W. 744, 35 L. R. A. 620;Filber v. Dautermann, 28 Wis. 134;Egan v. Semrad, 113 Wis. 84, 88 N. W. 906;Kraus v. Sentinel Co., 60 Wis. 425, 19 N. W. 384;Cramer v. Noonan, 4 Wis. 231;Platto v. Geilfuss, 47 Wis. 491, 2 N. W. 1135;Gillan v. State Journal, 96 Wis. 460, 71 N. W. 892;Solverson v. Peterson, 64 Wis. 198, 25 N. W. 14, 54 Am. Rep. 607;Massuere v. Dickens, 70 Wis. 83, 35 N. W. 349;Docter v. Riedel, 96 Wis. 158, 71 N. W. 119, 37 L. R. A. 580, 65 Am. St. Rep. 40;Birdsall v. Birdsall, 52 Wis. 208, 8 N. W. 822;Benz v. Wiedehoeft, 83 Wis. 397, 53 N. W. 686;Pandow v. Eichsted, 90 Wis. 298, 63 N. W. 284;Clute v. Clute, 101 Wis. 137, 76 N. W. 1114.

Grotophorst, Evans & Thomas, for plaintiff.

Bentley, Kelley & Hill, for defendant.

TIMLIN, J.

Matter of inducement contained in the first five paragraphs of the complaint and made applicable to each count averred that plaintiff was a resident of Baraboo, engaged in conducting a brewery, and the defendant a resident of the same city, engaged in the publication of a daily newspaper called the Evening News, having a large circulation, etc. Plaintiff had been an alderman of Baraboo, is a member of the board of supervisors for Sauk county, and enjoys a good reputation. The Ruhland Brewing Company is a Wisconsin corporation of which plaintiff is secretary and treasurer, and he owns all the stock, and alone controls the affairs and general business thereof. Plaintiff's sister owns a building in Baraboo occupied by one John Harris, as lessee, who conducts a retail liquor business therein. About February 1, 1910, a proceeding was commenced before the common council of Baraboo to revoke the liquor license of this Harris because of alleged illegal sales of intoxicating liquor by him at his said place of business to certain minors, and this proceeding was pending before the common council on February 24, 1910. The plaintiff was present at the meeting of the common council on that evening, and Harris appeared, denied the charge, and the proceeding to revoke his license was adjourned until February 28, 1910. Following this the first cause of action attempted to be set forth avers that on February 25, 1910, the defendant in his said newspaper wrote, printed, and published of and concerning the plaintiff the following false, libelous, and defamatory matter in an article entitled, “Just a Few Questions,” to wit: “There is a law that brewers cannot take out a license to run a saloon. Why is the Ruhland Brewing Company so interested in the Harris case? Who owns the saloon? Looks queer, doesn't it? What right had Charles Ruhland to speak at the council meeting? Charles Ruhland was once an alderman and is now a member of the Sauk county board of supervisors. The average citizen would suppose that he believed in protecting the peace and dignity of the state. He undoubtedly thinks John Harris guilty, else he would not cause warrants to be issued against the minors. What do you think of that?” This is followed by an innuendo reciting that by this statement was meant that plaintiff had violated the laws of the state of Wisconsin relative to liquor licenses, etc., and that this defamatory matter so written, composed, printed, published, and circulated by the defendant brought the plaintiff into social disgrace, public distrust, hatred, ridicule, and contempt, and was so understood by divers persons to the damage of the plaintiff.

The second separate cause of action charges in the same form the publication on the same day of the following: “What kind of sand are those aldermen standing on who first voted to go on with the case and then after receiving a Shakespearian pound of flesh broadside from the John Barleycorn attorney, decided to continue the matter. If the city council permits a brewing company to come in and run the business for them why not invite Cannon, Aldrich and the Steel Trust. Is the council controlling John Barleycorn or is John Barleycorn boss of the council?” Also another like publication in the same paper of an article entitled, “A Splendid Farce at City Council,” with a headline as follows: “The Ruhland Brewing Company Bigger Than the Entire City Government.” Also under this headline: “John Barleycorn Is Bigger Than the Entire City Government.” By innuendo this is charged to mean that the plaintiff is the personification of malt liquor, and a drunken, contemptible sot, and to liken him to that worthless, drunken, lawless, and detestable character ordinarily called in popular parlance “John Barleycorn,” to plaintiff's damage. The demurrer to the foregoing counts was properly sustained. The published matter charges no crime against the plaintiff. The hearing before the common council was for the purpose of examining and deciding the question of revocation of the license, and in this proceeding the public is interested. It cannot be said that because the plaintiff was a brewer and could not by law take out a license to run a saloon, but nevertheless was interested in the case, opposed the revocation of the license, and spoke at the council meeting, or caused warrants to be issued against minors, that the publication of such matters would tend to subject the plaintiff to public distrust, hatred, ridicule, or contempt. The publication set forth in these two counts does not go beyond the ordinary limits of argument. It is suggested by interrogation that the plaintiff was not impartial; that he had no right to speak at the meeting; that his conduct seemed strange; and that he no doubt believed Harris guilty of selling liquor to minors. The second count refers more particularly to a lack of fairness on the part of the aldermen who first voted to go on with the case, and then, after hearing the argument of the attorney opposed, decided to continue the matter. This argument is ambiguously and eloquently described as, “A Shakespearian pound of flesh broadside,” and the lawyer is referred to as “the John Barleycorn attorney.” This last does not relate to or concern the plaintiff. The defendant wishesto know whether the council is controlling John Barleycorn or John Barleycorn is boss of the council. We must assume that this proper name is used in the usual manner as a personification of intoxicating liquor, and is not intended to designate the plaintiff. The remaining expressions, “The Ruhland Brewing Company Bigger Than the Entire City Government,” contained in the headline, and the words in the body of the article, “John Barleycorn is bigger than the entire city government,” we are convinced are not libelous. It is neither criminal nor contemptible to be big or to exceed in size the city government. “Bigger,” as it is here used, means more powerful. But it suggests no improper acquisition or exercise of power. Editors or publishers of newspapers may in the columns of their papers argue in opposition to or in advocacy of any public measure like other citizens, and in doing so they are not confined within narrow limits, but outside of the restrictions of the libel...