Stevens v. Morse

• Decision Date: 13 January 1925
• Citation: 185 Wis. 500,201 N.W. 815
• Parties: STEVENS v. MORSE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

185 Wis. 500

201 N.W. 815

STEVENS

v.MORSE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 13, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pierce County; George Thompson, Judge.

Action by P. J. Stevens against S. R. Morse. From order overruling demurrer to complaint, defendant appeals. Order affirmed.Knowles & Doolittle, of River Falls, for appellant.

P. A. & R. R. Williams, of Marshfield, for respondent.

DOERFLER, J.

The action is one for libel. The complaint alleges, among other things, the following:

“I. That at the time hereinafter mentioned the plaintiff was a farmer, industrial organizer, and student and investigator of advanced methods in farming and marketing, residing in St. Croix county, Wis.

II. That at the time hereinafter mentioned the defendant was the editor, publisher, and proprietor of the River Falls Journal, a newspaper of general circulation, published at River Falls, Pierce county, Wis.

III. That on the 23d day of August, A. D. 1923, the defendant willfully and maliciously composed and published, concerning the plaintiff, with intent to injure the plaintiff in reputation, standing, and business, and to hold plaintiff up to public ridicule, contempt, and scorn, in said newspaper, the following false and defamatory matter, to wit: ‘Pat Stevens, St. Croix county, harangued a meeting in Erin lately, and wheedled out of his audience a few signatures to a set of resolutions which called for a farmers “strike” September 1. Pat told his farmer friends a lot of “terrible” things, and then explained just how everything could be remedied. Not many, if any, real farmers paid him the slightest attention, but of course that wouldn't bother Pat, for he got his satisfaction out of being the speaker at a meeting. And it is surprising to note that Pat has been criticized for presumption. One critic says that, while “Pat is one of the best known little talkers in the county,” he is also, “be it known, one of the poorest farmers anywhere. If every one farmed as Pat does there would be no need of talking about ‘curtailing production,’ because there'd be no production to curtail.” But his critics should know by this time that Pat's very ignorance of the fundamentals and the practice of his subject puts him in line for promotion as a wizard and prophet according to present day standards in politics. In Wisconsin the political slogan is “If Mendota don't get 'em, Madison must.” ' * * *”

To this complaint the defendant entered a general demurrer, which demurrer was overruled by the court. Defendant's counsel argues first, that the published article was not such as was calculated to subject the plaintiff to public hatred, ridicule or contempt, and secondly, that as an industrial organizer and student and investigator of advanced methods of farming and marketing, the plaintiff was engaged in an occupation of a public nature, in which the public was interested, and that the published article was therefore privileged, and constituted fair criticism.

In the case of Williams v. Hicks Printing Co., 159 Wis. 90, 150 N. W. 183, it is held:

“If a newspaper article naturally tends to make a person appear ridiculous or contemptible or subject him to hatred, or to disgrace him in society or injure him in his business, a right to recover damages follows as a matter of course in the absence of truth as a justification or...