Werner v. Ascher
| Decision Date | 07 November 1893 |
| Citation | 86 Wis. 349,56 N.W. 869 |
| Parties | WERNER v. ASCHER ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from superior court, Milwaukee county; R. N. Austin, Judge.
Action by Carl Werner against Louis Ascher and others to recover damages for libel. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer ore tenus to and dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by WINSLOW, J.:
Action for libel. Plaintiff was a saloon keeper in the town of Lake, Milwaukee county. The complaint charged in apt language that the defendants, maliciously intending to injure the plaintiff and his business, on the 10th of January, 1890, falsely and maliciously wrote and published a certain false, scandalous, and malicious libel of and concerning the plaintiff, which is set forth at length, with proper innuendoes. Sufficient allegations follow, showing that plaintiff's good name and reputation have been injured thereby, and that he has been driven out of his business as a saloon keeper. The alleged libelous article set forth in the complaint begins as follows: “To the Honorable, the Board of Supervisors of the Town of Lake, in the County of Milwaukee: We, the undersigned, citizens and taxpayers of the town of Lake and city of Milwaukee, respectfully show to your honorable body.” Then follow a series of statements charging in detail that the plaintiff has for more than a year kept a disorderly saloon, in which disorderly dances, disturbances, fights, and other breaches of the peace have frequently taken place, so that the saloon is a public nuisance; that the plaintiff allows minors to congregate and stay in his saloon, and participate in such dances, and sells beer and intoxicating drinks to such minors. The paper closes with a prayer that plaintiff's license be revoked, and said saloon be abolished. It is not alleged that the paper was ever verified, nor that it was ever presented to the board of supervisors; but it is alleged that it was written and published over the signatures of each and every of the defendants. A part of the defendants answered, admitting that they signed the paper, but denying any publication of the same except presentation to the chair man of the board of supervisors of the town of Lake, and claiming that the same was a privileged communication. The truth of the matters stated in the petition was also alleged. Upon the trial a demurrer ore tenus was sustained by the court, and the complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vultaggio v. Yasko
...to defamatory telegram of county sheriff responding to character check as part of town board tavern licensing process); Werner v. Ascher, 86 Wis. 349, 56 N.W. 869 (1893)(holding absolute privilege probably applicable to unsolicited petition to town board to revoke liquor license); Larkin v.......
-
Framsted v. Municipal Ambulance Service, Inc.
...572 N.W.2d 450 (city council); DiMiceli v. Klieger, 58 Wis.2d 359, 206 N.W.2d 184 (1973) (town board meeting) (citing Werner v. Ascher, 86 Wis. 349, 56 N.W. 869 (1893)). Although this privilege does not apply to meetings of clearly private bodies, DiMiceli, 58 Wis.2d at 365-66, 206 N.W.2d 1......
-
Sherrard v. Hull
...sent to legislators held absolutely privileged assuming good faith belief that attorneys' conduct warranted removal); Werner v. Ascher, 86 Wis. 349, 56 N.W. 869 (1893) (absolute privilege would exist if petition to local Board of Supervisors seeking revocation of plaintiff's liquor license ......
-
Converters Equipment Corp. v. Condes Corp.
...filed in court); Larkin v. Noonan, 19 Wis. 82 (1865) (statements in a petition to a governor to remove a sheriff); Werner v. Ascher, 86 Wis. 349, 56 N.W. 869 (1893) (statements made at a tavern licensing proceeding before a town board); Schier v. Denny, 12 Wis. 2d 544, 107 N.W.2d 611 (1961)......