Laurent v. Van Somple
This text of 154 N.W. 366 (Laurent v. Van Somple) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It is held in this case that the judgment was right because (1) the words alleged do not in their natural and ordinary meaning charge a criminal offense but merely slovenly or imperfect bookkeeping; (2) if it be held that they are defamatory in their nature and hence slanderous because special damage is alleged (Servatius v. Pichel, 34 Wis. 292), the answer is that loss of customers by a blacksmith cannot be held to be the natural or proximate result of a charge of bad bookkeeping.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
154 N.W. 366, 161 Wis. 354, 1915 Wisc. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laurent-v-van-somple-wis-1915.