Williams v. Hicks Printing Co.

• Decision Date: 08 December 1914
• Citation: 150 N.W. 183,159 Wis. 90
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. HICKS PRINTING CO. ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

159 Wis. 90

150 N.W. 183

WILLIAMS

v.HICKS PRINTING CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 8, 1914.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Winnebago County. George W. Burnell, Circuit Judge. Reversed.

Action to recover damages for a libelous publication in a newspaper printed and circulated in the City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

Defendant corporation was the owner of the newspaper. Defendant Hicks was the principal stockholder and practically controlled the corporation. Both were participants in the alleged wrong. Plaintiff was a lawyer in good standing and it was claimed that the article in question was willfully and maliciously composed and published with intent to injure him in his good name and fame as a lawyer and to bring him into public contempt and ridicule. The complaint contained allegations to the effect stated, also all essential allegations to support a recovery, including a copy of the article, as follows:

“The Rumpus over Assessments.

For the past three weeks, the business men of Oshkosh have been more or less wildly excited over a discussion at the City Hall on the subject of valuation of the property on which taxes are to be levied next December.

The whole thing was precipitated by the action of S. Heymann Co., proprietors of the largest department store in the city. The company felt aggrieved because it believed that its valuation, both real and personal, had been placed too high, and through its attorney, it began an aggressive campaign against fifteen or twenty large business concerns, demanding in no uncertain terms that the assessed valuation of the other concerns should be largely increased.

The Northwestern has published from day to day an impartial report of the proceedings, as it always does everything that interests the public, but until now it has refrained from any editorial comment for the reason that it had no desire to unduly influence the tax court which was investigating the matter. Now that the public inquest is practically finished it feels at liberty to speak its mind and discuss the subject, especially with reference to the effect of the movement on the prosperity of the city.

When the department store began their movement to raise the assessed valuation of other taxpayers they were clearly within their rights. The law gives any one the legal right to hale into court a fellow taxpayer and make him admit that his property is worth more than it is assessed at, but among business men who value the good-will of their neighbors and are familiar with the amenities of every day life, such a task is at best an ungracious one, even if it is performed with tact, politeness, suavity and the good natured courtesy which obtains among the well-bred people in the transaction of public business.

But when such an inquisition is performed by an attorney who seems to be entirely ignorant of the first principles of decent courtesy or fairness, and respectable business men are brought into court by a police officer, openly accused of falsehood and the uttering of false documents, treated like confessed swindlers, badgered and snubbed until the court had to intervene for the protection of the victim, one can only wonder what the fuss is all about.

It is only fair to assume that if the aggrieved party had gone with his attorney in a quiet and gentlemanly manner to the tax officials and shown that his property had been assessed too high his statement would have been received with candor and fairness, and undoubtedly he would have obtained at least a measure of relief. That is the method which the ordinary business man pursues and results usually justify the means.

But the public will wonder how the interests of the party aggrieved can be advanced when his attorney, strutting for a few brief moments in the public eye, flippantly accuses the president of one of our oldest and most reliable manufacturing concerns of falsifying his inventory to escape taxation.

The vice president of another manufacturing concern testified on oath that the real and personal property of his company was assessed at $200,000 more than the company would sell for, and yet this puny little member of the bar tried his best to produce the impression that the company had juggled its inventories and made a bitter fight to get the company's valuation increased.

In the case of another taxpayer, this attorney went so far as to actually make a proposition to buy the property in question, offering $150,000 ‘spot cash’ for it in his overheated desire to prejudice the court. The humor of the situation may be appreciated when it is understood that the man who made the offer is one of those who rarely carried around in his pocket any such sums as $150,000.00. Possibly in his first essay as an attorney, with his first case in opera bouffe, he felt that it was necessary to rival the feat of the Indiana farmer who came to Chicago to see the sights and then purchase the eighteen story building known as the Woman's Exchange for $300.00 which he carried safely in his inside pocket.

It is unnecessary to review the case any further. The Northwestern is sorry for those manufacturers and business men who have fallen under the displeasure of this attorney, for it is not a very pleasant thing to be unjustly accused of fraud or disreputable practices. It is a principle in law that a man is innocent until he is proven guilty, but in the opinion of this legal neophyte every man he points his finger at in court is guilty of all manner of evil doing and all that remains is for the court to pronounce judgment. To him any one who opposes him is steeped in iniquity and unworthy of belief.

It is difficult to see how the most disagreeable events of the last three weeks have helped anybody. The few dollars that may be lost or saved by an increase or decrease of one's valuation at tax-paying time will hardly be counterbalanced by the moral effects following the investigation. The good will of one's neighbors, the satisfaction of having them rights, the comity of interests that exists between every business man in the community--all these things are worth considering and all of them have been sorely tried.

We think we have made it quite plain that in the opinion of this paper, and we believe in the opinion of the public, the whole trouble has been caused by the injudicious actions of the attorney in question. The good name of Oshkosh has been publicly assailed and consequences are likely to follow that will seriously affect the prosperity of the city for all time.

But it is possible that the client assumes full responsibility for the work of the lawyer.

We shall not believe it, however, until we are compelled to.”

Defendants admitted publication and joint participation therein as alleged, pleaded that it was neither false nor defamatory, and took issue on all allegations of the complaint as to their conduct being actionable. By way of excuse, justification and mitigation of damages, this was, in effect, alleged: For some days prior to the publication, the Board of Review of the City of Oshkosh was in session in due performance of its duties. Plaintiff, as attorney for S. Heymann Co. and himself and by assumption, of all others similarly interested, appeared before the board and made objections to the assessments. The contest instituted and carried on by him was generally known and was of great public interest. In the proceedings aforesaid plaintiff was uniformly overbearing, opinionated, boastful, ungentlemanly and unlawyer like. He persisted in a course of intimidation of witnesses, accusing them of false swearing, of trying to avoid testifying, and of falsifying inventories, thereby creating much prejudice against some of them. His conduct was of the same character towards the Board. He openly accused its members of improper conduct. He accused some persons of corrupt practices and dishonest conduct, in failing to appear before the Board, and charged members of the Board with being in collusion with such persons. His conduct created much excitement in the City of Oshkosh. During practically all the sessions of the Board such conduct was unfair and insulting, both to taxpayers and members of the Board, going to the extent of disregarding principles of common decency and carrying the idea that taxpayers whom he caused to appear were corrupt and dishonest, requiring the Board, for its own protection and that of such witnesses, to rebuke him. His unfair conduct caused the Board to exclude him from examining witnesses in the first instance. The article had reference to the matter aforesaid. It was printed in good faith and as matter of justice to the Board and the persons unfairly dealt with before it by plaintiff. It was conditionally privileged on that account, and because it was but a fair statement of the facts and criticism of plaintiff's conduct.

Particularly in mitigation, defendants answered thus: Prior to the year 1913, customarily, property in Oshkosh had been assessed upon a uniform basis less than the true value. This was common in Winnebago County. The Tax Commission ordered its discontinuance. Thereupon the officials of the City of Oshkosh determined to obey such order and gave directions accordingly. Thereupon the assessor assessed the property in said city for taxes for 1913 at its fair value, resulting in a large increase of valuation in many cases, including property of plaintiff's particular client. That instigated such client to contest the matter as before indicated. Such contest was carried on in the manner aforesaid and was prepared for by arousing prejudice between classes of taxpayers and between them and the board. In all of this the plaintiff was the master spirit in connection with the principal owner of his client's corporation. Before the time for the hearing, plaintiff caused to be prepared and published and given wide circulation, misleading and prejudicial statements and comparisons respecting...