Case ID: wis_148/html/0091-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Winslow, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Neacy, Appellant, vs. Thomas and others, Respondents. Same, Respondent, vs. Same, Appellants.
    
      November 16, 1911
    
    January 30, 1912.
    
    
      Appealable orders: Examination of party as adverse witness.
    
    An order requiring a party, upon his examination as an adverse witness under sec. 4096, Stats. (Laws of 1909, ch. 84), to answer certain questions and sustaining his claim of privilege as to others, is not appealable under sec. 3069, Stats. (1898).
    Appeals from orders of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: F. 0. Esci-iwexlee, Circuit Judge.
    
      Dismissed.
    
    Eor the plaintiff there was a brief by Quarles, Spence & Quarles, and Irving Fish, of counsel, and oral argument by W. 0. Quarles.
    
    Eor the defendants there was a brief by Adolph Huebsch-mann and Arthur B. Barry, and oral argument by Mr. Huebschmann.
    
   The following opinion was filed December 5, 1911:

Winslow, C. J.

In an action of libel the defendant Berger declined to answer a large number of questions which were asked him in the course of his examination as an adverse witness under see. 4096, Stats. (Laws of 1909, ch. 84), on the ground that he believed that his answers might tend to incriminate him. The commissioner certified the matter to the circuit court, where‘an order was entered requiring the witness to answer certain of the questions, and sustaining his claim of privilege as to a large number of the questions. The plaintiff appeals from those parts of the order sustaining the claim of privilege, and the defendants Berger and the Social Democratic Publishing Company appeal from those parts of the order requiring Berger to answer certain questions.

Both appeals must be dismissed under the authority of Phipps v. Wis. Cent. R. Co. 130 Wis. 279, 110 N. W. 207. The orders complained of are merely rulings upon evidence, made in the course of the examination. They are not final orders in a special proceeding, nor do they in any proper sense grant, refuse, continue, or modify a provisional remedy. State v. Wis. T. Co. 134 Wis. 335, 113 N. W. 944.

By the Court. — Appeals dismissed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied January 30, 1912.