State ex rel. Mattison v. Baudhuin
| Decision Date | 01 June 1955 |
| Citation | 70 N.W.2d 674,270 Wis. 249 |
| Parties | STATE on relation of James R. MATTISON, Respondent. v. Alfred J. BAUDHUIN, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Wickert & Fuhrman, Milwaukee, for appellant.
Walter H. Bender, Milwaukee, for respondent.
Section 12.17, Stats., reads as follows:
'No person, firm or corporation shall knowingly make or publish, or cause to be made or published, any false statement in relation to any candidate, which statement is intended or tends to affect any voting at any primary or election.'
The defendant contends that the complaint is fatally defective in that no copy of the alimony card referred to was attached to the complaint and in that it failed to plead the contents of Mr. Sells' letter to which the defendant's article was a reply. We can find no merit in this contention. The charges are based upon what was stated and published by the defendant in his article. The pleading of the other documents is defensive matter and did not have to be incorporated in the complaint.
The defendant next contends that the complaint is fatally defective for the reason that the denial of the alimony charges was in effect a negative pregnant. However, the complaint went farther than to deny the statements in the article only as to the exact dates and amounts that appeared therein. In addition the complaint alleged that Sells was not in fact in arrears in any substantial sum. The complaint sufficiently alleges that it was a false statement.
The defendant also contends that the gravamen of the statement with reference to the alimony card is the same as the statement of Mrs. Sells in her affidavit, which was not denied. This is not a valid objection to the complaint. If one candidate made several false statements about his opponent it would only be necessary to plead and prove the falsity of one of them, together with the other essential elements embraced within the statute, to succeed in the action.
It is next contended by the defendant that the statements complained of are not misstatements of fact but merely opinions, deductions, fears, or suspicions, and a prediction of doom. The defendant relies in particular upon certain language appearing in the case of State ex rel. Hampel v. Mitten, 227 Wis. 598, 278 N.W. 431. This court did state therein that where the violations of ch. 12 are either technical, insubstantial, or trivial, they will not support a judgment of ouster, but that a deliberate,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holytz v. City of Milwaukee
...rule is that this court will not consider on appeal matters which were not presented to the trial court. State ex rel. Mattison v. Baudhuin (1955), 270 Wis. 249, 70 N.W.2d 674. In view of the unmistakable rulings of this court in a host of cases, it would have been futile to have expected t......
-
State ex rel. Skibinski v. Tadych
...of fact, not conclusions or opinions. State ex rel. Hampel v. Mitten (1938), 227 Wis. 598, 278 N.W. 431; State ex rel. Mattison v. Baudhuin (1955), 270 Wis. 249, 70 N.W.2d 674. A violation of sec. 12.17 to constitute the basis of an ouster from office under sec. 12.24, Stats., must be delib......