Weil v. Altenhofen
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court .for Washington County. Action for slander. Demurrer to the second and third counts of the complaint, as not stating a cause of action. The substance of those counts is stated in the opinion. Demurrer, sustained; and plaintiff appealed from the order. argued that the words charged are actionable (Herr v. Bamberg, 10 How.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court .for Washington County. Action for slander. Demurrer to the second and third counts of the complaint, as not stating a cause of action. The substance of those counts is stated in the opinion. Demurrer, sustained; and plaintiff appealed from the order. argued that the words charged are actionable (Herr v. Bamberg, 10 How. Pr. 128; J'Anson v. Stewart, 1 Term,'748; Smith v. Carey, 3 Campb. 461; 5 Pick. 244; Townshend on Slander, etc., secs. 173, 177); that if they are susceptible of two constructions, one charging a crime and the other not, it was for the jury to…
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
The slanderous words set out in the second paragraph of the complaint are: “Paul Weil,'’ meaning the plaintiff, “ swindled a man out of five hundred dollars near Schleisingerville; ” with an allegation that the defendant intended thereby to charge that the plaintiff was g’uilty of obtaining the sum of $500 from one John Eohn, under false pretenses.
In the third paragraph or count the defamatory words are: “ That Weil,” the plaintiff meaning, “swindled the county,” Washington county meaning, “out of seventeen hundred dollars;” alleging that the *710defendant intended thereby to charge that the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Campbell v. CampbellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Spiering v. AndræWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
- Frank v. DunningWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875