Connolly v. Waushara Granite Co. 162 Wis. 522. CONNOLLY, Respondent, vs. WAUSHARA GRANITE COMPANY, Appellant. December 7, 1915-March 14, 1916. Master and servant: Injury to employee in quarry: Unsafe working place: Contributory negligence. In an action for injury to a drill man working in a granite quarry, caused by a loose piece of rock being displaced and coming down upon his foot, the evidence is held to support findings by the jury to the effect that defendant negligently failed to provide a safe place for plaintiff to work and that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Waushara county: BYRON B. PARK, Circuit Judge. Affirmed. For the appellant there was a brief by McCabe & Dahlman and John J. Wood, Jr., and oral argument by Maurice W. McCabe. For the respondent there was a brief by Goggins & Brazeau, of counsel, and E. F. Kileen, attorney, and oral argument by Theo. W. Brazeau. The following opinion was filed January 11, 1916: TIMLIN, J. The plaintiff was an experienced drill man working in defendant's granite quarry. His regular work was drilling holes in blocks of granite detached from the ledge by some other workmen by blasting about three weeks prior to the injury. Plaintiff's drill work was for the purpose of breaking these detached stones along the line of drill holes into pieces convenient for handling or manufacture. Near the place of plaintiff's injury was a bench of stone in or adjacent to the ledge, having an upper surface of about ten by twelve feet and worked down so that its upper surface was six or eight feet from the bottom of the quarry. From the bottom of the quarry, slanting up to the top of this bench, was a filling of loose stone detached by some prior blast made before the plaintiff began work in the quarry. Plaintiff Connolly v. Waushara Granite Co. 162 Wis. 522. went to the top of the bench to assist with a crowbar a fellow workman to move a stone from the bench and throw it down toward the bottom, there to be marked and drilled as said. Observing that he had left his hammer and drills where the stone they were moving might fall on them, he descended from the bench and removed them and then started back up to the bench to complete the removal of the piece of rock. On his way up he accidentally stepped on a loose piece of rock, which act shook or displaced a large loose piece of rock about three feet higher up, which came down on plaintiff's foot, injuring it. At first the injury did not appear very serious, but, apparently without fault of the plaintiff, it so progressed that amputation of the foot became necessary. Liability is predicated upon the claim that the defendant did not furnish as safe a place in which to work as the nature of the work would permit and that the finding of the jury brings the case within the rule of Dolphin v. Peacock M. Co. 155 Wis. 439, 448, 144 N. W. 1112; Rosholt v. WordenAllen Co. 155 Wis. 168, 144 N. W. 650; Sparrow v. Menasha P. Co. 154 Wis. 459, 143 N. W. 317. There was evidence tending to show that in the usual operation of such quarries the men who blasted down from the ledge, after a blast, dislodged all the unstable overhanging stone and let them roll down toward the bottom of the quarry, and there is evidence from what happened here that this was not done or was not properly done in the instant case. It .would serve no good purpose to narrate the evidence more specifically. Suffice it to say that we are convinced that on the question of the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's contributory negligence and the amount of damages legally consequent upon the injury, there was evidence to support the verdict, and the judgment must be affirmed. By the Court.-Judgment affirmed. A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on March 14, 1916. Putnam v. Browne, 162 Wis. 524. PUTNAM, Appellant, vs. BROWNE and another, Respondents. December 8, 1915-March 14, 1916. Libel: Privilege: Criticism of candidate for office: False statements: Insults: Newspaper article: Meaning: When libelous: Justification: Proof of substance of charge: Excessive publication. 1. A candidate for a public office where integrity, incorruptibility, and judicial ability are absolute essentials places his character in these respects before the people for consideration and discussion, and fair comment or criticism-even though caustic and severe-made in good faith and without malice by a newspaper is privileged; but insult, contemptuous phrase, or false and libelous statements of fact are not privileged. 2. Secs. 94-17 and 94-38, Stats. 1911,-providing a penalty for knowingly publishing any false statement intended or tending to affect a candidate at any primary or election,-do not change the principles of law with respect to privilege in a civil action for libel, but add to the penalties which may follow the publication of false and libelous statements of fact regarding candidates for public office. 3. In judging of the meaning of any given part of an alleged libelous newspaper article the whole article must be considered. 4. If a newspaper article conveys the idea that a candidate for office received and took part in the unlawful distribution of a part of a political corruption fund, or that he sold his political influence and surrendered his honest belief for money, it is libelous unless proven to be true; but if it simply conveys the idea that he received and distributed in lawful ways a part of a large political campaign fund and received money for political labor and influence exerted in lawful ways and not contrary to his honest convictions, it is not libelous. 5. A newspaper editorial which contained a thinly veiled comparison of a candidate for judicial office to Judas Iscariot was libelous as matter of law and not privileged, such comparison being a jibe, a contemptuous insult, and not fair criticism of any type. 6. In order to be a complete defense to an action for libel a justification must be as broad as the libel; but it is sufficient if the substance of the charge be proven. 7. Thus, where the alleged libelous statement was that a certain amount of money was received and disbursed by plaintiff for corrupt and unlawful political purposes, it is a sufficient justification to show that a substantial sum was so received and disbursed, though less than the amount charged. Putnam v. Browne, 162 Wis. 524. [8. Whether the fact that a newspaper, though primarily a local county paper, had some incidental circulation outside of the county, would prevent it from successfully interposing the defense of privilege when it had honestly discussed the qualifications of candidates for office in that county, not decided.] APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Waupaca county: CHESTER A. FOWLER, Judge. Reversed. Action for libel. In the spring of 1913 the plaintiff, a lawyer, was a candidate for county judge of Waupaca county and the defendant printing company published in its weekly newspaper, the Waupaca Republican-Post, an editorial partially written by the defendant Browne, as follows: "Do Voters Look with Favor on Distributor of "The statement of campaign disbursements in the campaign of 1910 by the Connor campaign committee shows that Giles H. Putnam, candidate from New London for county judge, received several hundred dollars from the big Connor slush fund. "In the records of the office of register of deeds of Fond du Lac county are the following items filed by James A. Hogan, treasurer of the Republican state committee, his temporary residence being at Fond du Lac at that time: "On July 23, 1910, check No. 443 for $31.47 to G. H. Putnam for services and expenses; August 1, 1910, check No. 798, $13 for expense, G. H. Putnam; August 2, 1910, check No. 829, expenses to date, $16.20, G. H. Putnam; August 18, 1910, for organization Waupaca county, $50, to G. H. Putnam; August 18, 1910, organization Manitowoc county, $200, to G. H. Putnam; August 31, for organization in Waupaca county, $75, to G. H. Putnam. "The campaign of 1910 was one of the most important in the history of Wisconsin or even the nation. La Follette had been doing things in the United States senate. The Wisconsin idea was fast becoming nationalized. The special interests of the country were alarmed, and after many conferences decided to make a final stand in Wisconsin against the progressive movement and defeat La Follette at all hazards. They marshaled to their sides every possible available resource and Putnam v. Browne, 162 Wis. 524. a nation-wide conference took place. W. D. Connor, the Marshfield lumberman, who had been chairman a few years before of the Republican state central committee, and who, as such chairman, had a list of valuable names in each county in the state, was selected as their chairman and they placed in his hands $100,000 which he expended. How much more was expended by committee out of the state no one will ever know. La Follette was unable to go upon the stump and had no money to expend for a campaign. The citizenship of Wisconsin showed that it was not purchasable and that the birthright of citizenship was worth more than a mess of pottage. Loyal citizens, Democrats and Republicans, said that the battle was the people's battle, and, without hope of reward, threw themselves into the contest and La Follette and progressive principles triumphed. "Wisconsin gave a majority to La Follette of over 100,000 at the primaries. Waupaca county did its share and stood as one of the banner counties in the state, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Putnam, the candidate for county judge, received $385.67 to defeat La Follette and the principles he stood for. "Do you think that selling one's influence for $385.67 is a good qualification for a high position like that of county judge? In days gone by, the receiving of thirty pieces of silver forever and rightfully condemned a man. Times have not so changed that receiving $385.67 for the purpose of defeating a man who was championing the people's cause ought to be a virtue or a qualification for office. "We do not know that these sums amounting to $385.67 were all the amounts that were received by Mr. Putnam in the eventful campaign of 1910. Had all of the men who received parts of the Connor slush fund been proud of the part they took in that campaign, we do not imagine that they would have been so quiet about the filing of their expense account which was dug up by an ever-vigilant newspaper reporter and first published by the Milwaukee Journal December 16, 1910. "A county judge should be a man of the highest character and integrity, with a reputation above reproach. W. M. Emmons is such a man. He was born and raised on a farm in the town of Dayton, Waupaca county, and has lived in Wau |
