The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1915-12-31
WILDER LOSES
HIS LIBEL SUIT
AGAINST POST
Judge Case Justifies Newspaper
Criticism Of City Court
Judges Actions.

fudge William L. Case directs a judg-
ment for the Bridgeport Evening Post,
in the libel suit brought by Deputy
Judge Frank L. Wilder. of city court,
plaintiff.
Judge Case finds that the statements
of The Post were warranted, in view
of all the circumstances, and the con-
dition of public opinion.
His opinion contains a severe de-
nunciation of the methods pursued by
Deputy Judge Wilder in handling the
affairs of Carl F. Siemon, his client.
The suit grew out of the killing OF
John De MARITIME, at Fairfield avenue
and Grove street, in 1911, by an auto
mobile driven by Mr.. Siemon. Wilder,
representing Siemon, made attempts to
settle the case, though he was a Judge
of the city court, acting through his
partner, Henry Shannon, under the
firm name of shannon & Wilder.
The defendant commented severely
upon Judge fWilder's relation to the
case. He brought an action, claiming
damages of SO, goo.
Judge Case in his opinion says in
part: :
ION the evening of oct. 90, 1910.
a pedestrian was struck and killed
by a passing automobile on one of the
thoroughfares of Bridgeport. The oe-
rrence created unusual public interest
by reason of the successful conceal
ment of the identity of the car and its
occupants The city press rehearsed
such meager details of the affair as
were available, and dweIt upon the
active efforts of the police to find the
man who either by accident or reck-
Iessness had caused the death
The public knew nothing more OF
the affair for more than three years.
Then came the sudden disclosure
through the local press that Carl r.
How u
the car that did the killing, and that
this information had for many
months been secretly shared by GER
tain persons, including the president
Of the police board and the plaintiff,
who was widely known as a judge OF
the local police court, and commonly
rfferred to as Judge Wilder Pub
lie interest was revived in the case,
and possibly directed itself quite as
ponntedIy to the two officials just
named, as to Siemon himself
4fOf these we are concerned only
with the PLAINTIFF. He had acted, 1t
seems, on other occasions as Mr.. Sic
mons lawyer, and this gentleman dis
closed to him, in that capacity, his own
probable part in the killing Of De-
MARITIME. Mr.. Wilder, with commenda-
Bile promptness, saw his own disqual-
ihcation, and refused to act Had he
stopped there, he might have sealed
his lips upon a professional communi-
.cation-but he did not stop there. He
transferred the client to his partner,
and in the subsequent undisputed ef-
forts to silence the matter by a secret
settlement of possible civil action
arising out of the case, the partner
acted, not detached and independ-
emily, but as an and for the firm of
Shannon and Wilder. These efforts
were undertaken before the final pub
lie disclosure, of course and through
out them prime purpose was still
the concealment Of their c1ient-Sie-
mon s-identity
ssIt is Idle, of course, to talk about
a shifting OF personal responsibility
under such circumstances as these un-
disputed facts establish. It is idle,
also, to seek cover under the claim
that this particular judgeship does not
disqualifys the plaintiff, or his firm,
from general practice in the crim-
ina1 courts. OF course it does not.
We may go farther and concede that
it did not disQuaIify the firm, or Mr..
Wilder himself, from handling Mr..
Sienon's interests in the affair in
vo1ved-either in its civil or criminal
aspect. But what really concerns us
is the fact, or chain Of facts, that at
tended this remarkable case up to its
Anal public exposure. 1t is the
method employed that lays the trans
action under the ban of disapproval
and that properly subjects to fair
criticism every one directly con-
cit is unnecessary to rehea15e the
/ principles of law dealing with a news
papers privilege of fair comment on e
matter of public interest They are toe
well settled, and their limits too wei
| fixed to bear repetition. Whether
! the Post passed these limits depends
upon a reasonable and fair construc.
ton of its language.
1.-THE comments of the defendant
newspaper was severe, it is true. bu'
/ that it insinuated an actually corrup
act by Mr.. Wilder, cannot find, IL
view Of the construction which mus
be put upon it in the light of the es
| tab1ished surrounding facts.
.If we are permitted to distinguish
| between corruption and a discriminas
| ton which lacks a corrupt motive. the
case calls for the distinction.
If then we eliminate any charge OF
corruption from what the newspapers
printed. its comment amounts to cri-
tic1sm of the plaintiff's attitude il
either actively or passive1y aiding II
an apparent plan to shield Siemor
from publicity.
border line Of safety some OF the com.
under all circumstances shown that i
violates the privilege of fair comment
and judgment is therefore directed for
| the defendant. :
!