## Facts

- Edwin J. Helmicks worked as cashier for the Bank of Deerfield from October 1930 to January 1932, when the bank closed.
- H. J. Stevlingson had previously served as a cashier of the same bank.
- After the bank closed, Stevlingson caused a statement to be published describing the bank as “loaned to death by the former cashier.”
- The publication did not name Helmicks and referred only to “the former cashier.”
- Helmicks sued for libel, alleging the statement was understood to mean he improperly made loans that caused the bank’s failure and injured his professional reputation.
- Stevlingson demurred, asserting the complaint failed to state a cause of action because the publication did not sufficiently identify Helmicks as the person defamed.

## Issues

1. Whether a libel complaint states a claim when the publication does not name the plaintiff and identifies the subject only as “the former cashier,” with the plaintiff’s identity supplied by alleged innuendo and surrounding circumstances.
2. Whether conclusory allegations that readers understood the statement to refer to the plaintiff satisfy the “of and concerning” requirement.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the order overruling the demurrer.
- The court held the complaint failed to state a libel cause of action because the publication was not sufficiently pleaded to be “of and concerning” Helmicks.
- The court directed the circuit court to sustain the demurrer and dismiss the complaint.

## Legal Principles

- A libel plaintiff must plead and ultimately prove that the defamatory publication was “of and concerning” the plaintiff.
- When the plaintiff is not named, the pleading must allege specific extrinsic facts showing the words reasonably apply to the plaintiff such that readers familiar with the circumstances would understand the reference.
- Innuendo may explain the sense in which words were used, but it cannot enlarge, extend, or change the natural meaning of the published language.
- If the publication reasonably permits an interpretation that does not necessarily identify the plaintiff, the identification element is not satisfied by conclusory assertions that the plaintiff was the intended subject.

## Conclusion

Because the statement “loaned to death by the former cashier” did not, on its face or through well-pleaded extrinsic facts, necessarily identify Helmicks, the complaint did not meet the “of and concerning” requirement for libel; the demurrer was sustained and the action dismissed.


Helmicks v. Stevlingson, 212 Wis. 614, 250 N.W. 402 (Wis. 1933)