#### State ex rel. Schumacher, Appellant, vs. Markham, Respondent.

*November 20, 1915*

January *11, 1916.*

*Appealable orders: Pleading: Corrupt Practices Act: Penalties: Ouster from office: Party as witness: Privilege: Self4ncrimination: Adverse examination.*

1. An order requiring a complaint to he made more definite and certain is not appealable.

2. The ouster from office which may be adjudged in an action for violation of the Corrupt Practices Act is a penalty or forfeiture equally with a forfeiture of money or property.

3. Such an action being one to enforce a penalty or forfeiture for criminal misconduct, the defendant cannot be compelled to be a. witness against himself therein.

4. A proceeding for the examination, under sec. 4096, Stats., of a defendant in such an action, the purpose of which was to -prove by himself that he was guilty of a criminal violation of the primary law which would forfeit his right to hold an office to which he had been elected, was properly dismissed.

Appeal from orders of the circuit court for Dodge county: George Grimm, Circuit Judge.

*Dismissed as to one order • the others affirmed.*

This is an action brought under the Corrupt Practices Act (secs. 94 — 1 to 94 — 35, Stats. 1913) to try the title to the-office of district attorney, it being alleged that the defendant violated the act during the primary campaign of 1913 by purchasing intoxicating liquors for voters and in other ways. The complaint was before this court on a former appeal (160 Wis. 431, 152 1ST. W. 161) and was sustained.

Three orders are now appealed from, viz.: (1) an.order requiring the complaint to be made more definite and certain, and (2) an order limiting the examination of defendant as. an adverse witness under-sec. .4096, Stats., and (3) an order dismissing the last named proceeding.

For the appellant there was a brief by the *Attorney*Gen*56
      *■eral*and *Boyal F. Ciarle,*special counsel, and oral argument .by *Mr. Clark.*

For the respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of *■Sawyer & Sawyer.*

Winslow, C. J.

In this case it is held:

1. An order requiring a complaint to be made more definite and certain is not appealable under the present appeal statute. *O’Connell v. Smith,*101 Wis. 68, 76 N. W. 1116.

2. The object of this statutory action is to oust the defendant from his office because of alleged criminal misconduct in the primary campaign and such ouster is manifestly a penalty or forfeiture equally with a forfeiture of money or prop■erty. See opinions upon former appeal. 160 Wis. 431, 152 N. W. 161.

3. Being an action to enforce a penalty or forfeiture for criminal misconduct, the defendant cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself therein. Sec. 8, art. I, Const.; *Boyd v. U. S.*116 U. S. 616, 6 Sup. Ct. 524; *Karel v. Conlan,*155 Wis. 221, 144 N. W. 266, and cases cited therein.

4. The purpose of the adverse examination in the present case being confessedly to prove by defendant himself that he was guilty of criminal violation of the primary law which would forfeit his right to hold the office of district attorney, the court properly held that he could not be compelled to answer, hence the order dismissing the proceeding was correct.

*By the Court.*— The appeal from the order requiring the complaint to be made more definite and certain is dismissed, and the remaining orders appealed from are -affirmed; the respondent to tax but one bill of costs.