SCHEDULE 14A
                SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of 
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Filed by the Registrant [ ]

Filed by a Party Other than the Registrant   [X]

Check the appropriate box:

[ ] Preliminary Proxy Statement

[ ] Definitive Proxy Statement   

[X] Definitive Additional Materials

[ ] Soliciting Material Pursuant to Section 240.14a-11(c) or
Section
        240.14a-12


Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter:  

Briggs & Stratton

Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement:  

Wisconsin Coalition For Responsible Investment

Payment of Filing Fee (check the appropriate box)

[X] $125 per Exchange Act Fules 0-11(c)(1)(ii), 14a-6(i)(1), or
    14a-6(j)(2).
[ ] $500 per each party to the controversy pursuant to Exchange
Act 
    Rule 14a-6(i)(3).
[ ] Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules
14a-6(i)(4)
    and 0-11.
    1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction
applies:
       ______________________________________________________

    2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction
applies:
       ______________________________________________________

    3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction
computed
       pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11: (1)
       ______________________________________________________

    4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
       ______________________________________________________

(1) Set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated 
and state how it was determined.
[ ] Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by
Exchange
Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the
offsetting
fee was paid previously.  Identify the previous filing by
registration
statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its
filing.
    1) Amount previously paid:
       _____________________
    2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
       _____________________
    3) Filing Party: ____________________

    Date Filed: _____________


         WISCONSIN COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT
1015 North 9th Street              Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233

                          NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release:             For More Information Contact:
September 30, 1994                 Richard G. McCracken
                                   (415) 626-1880

             BRIGGS & STRATTON ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

        FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS COMPANY TO TELL SHAREHOLDERS
         THEY HAVE A CHOICE IN THE ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

     Milwaukee--On September 30, Senior United States District
Judge Myron Gordon (Eastern District of Wisconsin) ordered Briggs
& Stratton Corporation to send a supplemental proxy statement to
its shareholders informing them that William P. Dixon is a
candidate for director.  Mr. Dixon is running for the board in
opposition to management's nominees.  The Company did not
disclose Dixon's candidacy in its original proxy statement, which
was issued September 8.  Only management's candidates were
listed.  Joseph Chambers, an employee-shareholder who nominated
Dixon, sued Briggs to force it to tell shareholders about Dixon's
candidacy.

     In addition to ordering Briggs to tell shareholders they
have the choice of voting for Mr. Dixon, Judge Gordon also
ordered that no proxies obtained by the Company and dated before
October 1, 1994 may be counted.  The court also ordered that the
supplemental proxy statement must include background information
about Dixon, including the fact that he is a partner in the
Madison office of the Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland law firm,
a former Wisconsin Banking Commissioner, former Chief of Staff to
Senator Gary Hart, and a former alternate U.S. delegate to the
World Bank.

     "I believe shareholders have a right to know about all the
candidates for the board of directors, not just the ones hand-
picked by management," said Joe Chambers, the Briggs shareholder
who brought the lawsuit.

     Dixon also expressed satisfaction with the ruling.  "This is
a tremendous victory for the rights of Briggs' shareholders. 
It's unfortunate a shareholder had to sue the company to force
management to comply with the law, but now we can be certain that
all shareholders will have an opportunity to vote for an
independent candidate," Dixon stated.  "If I am elected, I will
insist that Briggs & Stratton live up to its responsibilities--to
its shareholders, to its workers, and to the community."

     Judge Gordon's order is believed to be the first time any
court has ordered a company to include the name of an opposition
candidate for director in its own proxy statement.  Briggs
claimed that widespread corporate practice is to include only
management's nominees in the company's proxy statement, and to
make opposition candidates pay for their own proxy solicitations. 
Chambers asserted, on the other hand, that Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires the company to disclose
in its proxy statement anything that is material, and that
nothing is more material to shareholders than the fact they have
a choice in the election of directors.

     "This case presents a fundamental question of shareholder
democracy," said Richard G. McCracken of the San Francisco law
firm of Davis, Cowell & Bowe, counsel for Joseph Chambers.  "The
most important exercise of the shareholders' right to vote is the
election of directors.  Why should management's candidate be able
to campaign at the expense of shareholders, who are the ones who
pay for the company's proxy statement, while opposition
candidates must pay their own way?"

     "It may be that what Briggs did is a common practice among
U.S. corporations, but the fact that it happens a lot does not
make it right," said McCracken.  "In fact, this may be the
beginning of a long-overdue reform of the way corporate directors
are elected."