Baraboo weekly news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1912-197?, 1914-03-19
FATHER O'REILLY
IS INDICATED

ID VNDIUAIEU
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
CIRCUIT COURT FOR SAUK co.
State of Wisconsin
VS..
A w. Foster, Defendant.
DECISION.
The defendant here is prosecuted
under a new statute in this state
passed by the last legislature, and
in it's Interpretation the court is not
aided by any ruling made by
our own Supreme Court and the
court cannot have that assistance
until some case is decided and
taken to our Supreme Court. There
is evidence here on the part of
the state tending to show that
the defendant uttered these SANDER
Gus and defamatOry statements re-
garding Father O'Reilly. That they
were sIanderous and defamatory can
not be denied. The language which
the witnesses testified that the de-
fendant uttered reflect very serious
ly on the character of Catholic
priest, and it is very sad, indeed,
that the defendant or any body else
here we're making such statements
regarding Father O'Reilly, because
tie evidence so far shows that
Father O'Reilly was as clear and
pure as far as these matters are con-
cerned as any citizen in Baraboo.
The testimony Of the two girls, one
of them now being a married woman,
| is to the effect that Father O'Reilly
never had anything to do with them,
and Father O'Reilly's own testimony
is to the same effect, so the
court must assume for the purpose OF
this motion that Father O'Reilly is
entirely clear of any of the imputa-
tons contained in the language or
said to be uttered by the defendant.
| And as the case now stands he is
entirely clear of any imputation Of
guilt so far as is alleged in the in
formation. Now the court comes to
the point that is argued so elaborate
ly and thoroughly by counsel for de-
PENDANT and the court has to meet
that and has to consider the author
tiles which have been cited from
other Jurisdictions on the subject |
must say that the argument of de-
PENDANTS SOunsel seems to me to be
sound. In this case aside from the ties
timony of Mr.. Terry, the only witness
es, (and there must be two under the
statute) who testified to the utter
ing of this slanderous language by
the defendant, are the two detec-
tives. The evidence on the part of
the state shows that Father O'Re1lly
employed the Burns Detective Agen-
cy of Chicago to send Detectives
here to run down the author Of these
stories. The two detectives who tes-
titled say they are employed by the
Burns Detective Agency. So the case
lis just the same as though Father
O'Reilly himself had employed these
two Detectives to come here and go
to the defendant and get his state
ment. In other words the s1tua
ton appears to be to the court just
the same as though Father O'Rellly
had gone there himself to the defend
ant with some purpose, for the pur
pose of obtaining these statements
from the defendant. The Burns De
Detective Agency was the agen
of Father O'Reilly and the Burns
Detective Agency employed the two
: detectives. So the two dectives mus
be held to be the employees Of Father
O'Reilly Now then assuming that tt
be true, and that in the law the two
dectives were employed by the com
| p1dluduC 10 ~ W CLS oCIChOS|lAN N'AN
get these statements, could the com
planning witness prosecute an actor
civilly for damages gainst the defen
dant! 1t is perfectly clear within al
these authorities which have beer
cited by defendants counsel that he
cannot maintain a civil action. The
statements would be privileged. 4
party slandered or ibeled under
these authorities cannot go tt
the party alleged to have cir
culated these statements and he can
not employ others to go as decoys
or detectives and get out Of defend
ant these statements and then prose
cute him The authorities hold that
in civil action they are estopped and
the statements privileged, although
they might be false. The court stop
ped defendants counsel early IN
the argument to inquire whether that