Minnesota Supreme Court, 1895

Wilkes v. Shields

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 15, 1895 · Start

62 Minn. 426; 64 N.W. 921; 1895 Minn. LEXIS 108 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Dan. W. Lawler, for appellant., McDonald <& Barnard, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1991, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Weissman v. Sri Lanka Curry House, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)
Kovatovich v. K-Mart Corp. (D. Minn. 1999)
Shields v. Booles (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1931)
People v. Mintz (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)
Trebby v. Transcript Publishing Co. (Minn. 1898)
Peterson v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (Minn. 1896)
Byram v. Aiken (Minn. 1896)
Devany v. Quill (New York Supreme Court 1946)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

START, O. J.

The complaint in substance alleges that the defendant published of and concerning the plaintiff the charge that he was “a dangerous, able, and seditious agitator.” The defendant interposed a general demurrer to the complaint, which was overruled by the district court and from its order this appeal was taken.

As applied to this case, any words published of another, the natural tendency of which is to hold him up to hatred, scorn, contempt, or ridicule, and to beget an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-*427thinking pei’sons, and to deprive him of their friendly intercourse and society, are libelous, and actionable per se. A seditious agitator can be neither a good citizen nor a fit associate for honorable men. The obvious meaning of the words “a seditious agitator,” as they would naturally be understood by ordinary men when published in reference to another, is that he is a disturber of the public peace and order, a subverter of just laws, and a bad citizen. The publication of such a charge is clearly libelous, and actionable per se. In the pithy language of the learned trial judge: "To say, then, that a person is a dangerous, able, and seditious agitator is to charge him with being a disturber of public tranquility, and guilty of acts, by writings, speeches, or otherwise, tending to the breach of public order, all of which is inimical to good society and the highest and best interests of the people. Such acts and conduct, even in this free country, must make the person therewith charged an object of public distrust, reproach, and contumely, and such charges are clearly defamatory.”' The actionable quality of the words used in this publication is manifest on its face, and it was not necessary to allege any extrinsic facts and circumstances to show their meaning.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.