Case ID: wis_156/html/0462-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Keewiet, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fehlhaber, Respondent, vs. McFadden, Appellant.
    
      February 25
    
    March 17, 1914.
    
    
      Slander: Words actionable per se: Pleading: Definiteness: Several causes of action: Assessing damages as an entirety.
    
    1. Words falsely spoken, of a person in Ms capacity as casMer of a trust company, charging him with being crooked, with raising the amount of a note, with forging a note, and with “beating” a depositor out of money by obtaining tbe surrender of a certificate of deposit without in fact paying it, were actionable per se.
    
    2. Tbe objection that tbe complaint was not sufficiently specific in that it did not allege that tbe words were spoken of and concerning tbe plaintiff with reference to his business, was not well taken, especially when first made after answer to tbe merits and verdict in plaintiff’s favor.
    3. Assessment of' damages as an entirety will not be held error if some of tbe causes of action alleged were good and were supported by tbe evidence.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Marathón county: A. H. Reid, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    This is an action for slander., Tbe jury returned tbe following verdict:
    “(1) Did tbe defendant on or about July 27, 1911, in tbe presence of George A. Bullion, speak of and concerning tbe plaintiff in bis position of cashier of Wisconsin Valley Trust Company, substantially tbe words: ‘The cashier in there is crooked. He beat me out of a couple of hundred dollars?’ A. (by tbe court). Yes.
    “(2) Was tbe defendant actuated by express malice in speaking tbe words set forth in question number 1 ? A. Yes.
    “(3) Did tbe plaintiff prior to July 27, 1911, while acting as cashier for tbe Wisconsin Valley Trust Company, handling moneys of tbe defendant, unlawfully and intentionally convert to bis own use $200 of tbe defendant’s funds or a substantial portion thereof? A. No.
    “(4) Did tbe defendant on or about August 1, 1911, in the presence of tbe plaintiff and A. L. Kreutzer, say with reference to tbe $325 note in question substantially tbe words, ‘It was only $225 and you (addressing plaintiff) must have raised it to $325 ?’ A. Yes.,
    “(5) If you answer tbe fourth question ‘Yes,’ then answer this question: Was tbe defendant in speaking said words actuated by express malice ? A. Yes.
    “(6) (Not answered.)
    “(7) Did tbe defendant on September 5, 1911, in tbe presence of A. L. Kreutzer, say of and concerning tbe $50 note in question, ‘It is not my signature. Tbe note was in bis (meaning plaintiffs) possession and be is responsible for it?’ A. (by tbe court). Yes.
    “(8) Were tbe words spoken by tbe defendant referred to in tbe preceding questions, under tbe circumstances in wbicb they were spoken, naturally calculated and intended by defendant to charge tbe plaintiff with tbe crime of forgery? A. Yes.
    “(9) If you answer question number 8 ‘Yes,’ tben was tbe defendant in speaking said words actuated by express malice ? A. Yes.
    “(10) (Not answered.)
    “(11) Was tbe signature of tbe defendant to tbe $50 note in question (Exhibit B) a forgery ? A. No.
    “(12) Did tbe defendant on or about September 5, 1911, in the presence of A. E. Kuolt, A. L. Kreutzer, and tbe plaintiff, speaking of and concerning a certain certificate of deposit of tbe sum of $150 issued by tbe Wisconsin Valley Trust Company to tbe defendant, say, ‘It was never paid to me. You (addressing plaintiff) beat me out of that money,’ intending thereby to charge that tbe plaintiff obtained tbe surrender of said certificate without in fact paying tbe same ? A. (by tbe court): Yes.
    “(13) Was tbe charge wbicb was made by tbe defendant against tbe plaintiff as set forth in tbe preceding question true? A. No.
    “(14) If you answer question number 13 ‘No,’ tben was tbe defendant in speaking said words actuated by express malice? A. Yes.
    “(15) (Not answered.)
    “(16) If tbe plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action, in what amount do you assess bis actual damages ? A. $500.
    “(17) In case you award tbe plaintiff punitory damages, in what amount do you assess tbe same ? A. $500.”
    Judgment was entered in favor of tbe plaintiff on tbe verdict and defendant appealed.
    Tbe cause was submitted for tbe appellant on tbe brief of Carl N. Sill, and for tbe respondent on that of Kreutzer, Bird, Eosenberry & Okoneshi.
    
   Keewiet, J.

Tbe verdict sufficiently shows the basis of plaintiff’s claim. The appellant insists that the words are not actionable per se. A demurrer ore terms was interposed by defendant, overruled, and the ruling is complained of as error. The words were spoken of plaintiff in his capacity as officer and cashier of the Wisconsin Valley Trust Company, charging him with criminal misconduct, and were clearly actionable per se. Gross C. Co. v. Rose, 126 Wis. 24, 105 N. W. 225; Bilgrien v. Ulrich, 150 Wis. 532, 137 N. W. 759; Singer v. Bender, 64 Wis. 169, 24 N. W. 903. But it is contended by appellant that the complaint is not sufficiently specific in that it does not charge that the words were spoken of and concerning the plaintiff with reference to his business. We think this point is not tenable even if objection had been seasonably and specifically made. But clearly, in the absence of objection by motion to make more ■definite, and after answer to the merits and verdict, the objection is not well taken.

Error is also assigned on the admission and exclusion of evidence. These assignments of error are entirely without merit and do not require special treatment.

It is further insisted that it was error to assess damages as an entirety, on the ground that some of the causes of action were bad. The point is not well taken. Bushee v. Wright, 1 Pin. 104. However in the case at bar the jury found all the causes of action in favor of the plaintiff, and we regard the verdict well supported.

We find no prejudicial error in the record.

By the Court. — The judgment is affirmed.

TimliN, J. I concur in the result.