A NEWSPAPER LIBEL

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11102, 29 June 1899, Page 3

A NEWSPAPER LIBEL

DANCIA V. BRATSKA SLOGA.

THE INFORMATION DISMISSED. A libel case, which created a good deal of amusement, was heard yesterday at the Auckland Police Court, before His Worship Mr. T. Hutchison, S.M., when the case, Ivan Segetin v. Anton Bulat, was called. The informant charged the defendant with having (unlawfully, wickedly, and maliciously, and with intent to injure, vilify, and prejudice one Ivan Segetin, and to deprive him of his good name, fame, reputation, and to bring him into public contempt, scandal, infamy, and disgrace) on May 29, 1899, written and published an article, entitled " Danica," in a certain newspaper, in the city of Auckland, called the Bratska Sloga, and printed in tho Croatian language. Mr. W. J. Napier appeared for, the prosecution, and Mr. J. K. Reed for the defence. Tho former, in opening the case, said the Danica and Bratska, Sloga were rival Dalmatian newspapers, printed in Auckland. The former had only recently been started, when tho alleged libel appeared in tho Bratska Sloga (Tho Brotherhood Union). Tho complainant was a Dalmatian journalist, and connected with tho Danica (Morning Star), being proprietor of it. Tho defendant was part proprietor and publisher of the Bratska Sloga. Mr. Napier then read a translation of the alleged libel, which was appended to the information, and ran as follows: — "We ask all tho people of Now Zealand, and other parts of the world, to judge whether, when they carefully read the first and second numbers of Bratska Slpga, they will, at first glance, know that this Danica is nothing eke but great spite on tho part of Mr. Donkey I. Segetin. All our Croatian people in New Zealand will know of the bringing up and education of Mr. Segetin. When lie was in tho Old Country ho was in need of day work with his mule, or donkey; the same during his short stay in America, where his proceedings will soon lie known to us from our American Croatians. Mr. Sogetin's life in New Zealand is well known on tho gumfields; his wild life and his loafing about tho streets of Auckland are known. Without any education himself, ho acknowledges in his letter to Mr. Ferri that 'ho has no education in any language, and without having any knowledgo or associating witli decent people, is it possible that such a man can publish a newspaper in a foreign country? This attempt of his to establish a newspaper is nothing but spite, which is in his hoart, and it is an attempt to destroy and put to shame our honest Croatian people. The Danica did not come out for any other purpose but to spread revolution among the people, by means of Lucifer Segetin, and in order that the Croatian people of this country shall not bo brought to shame, wo will bo compelled, personally, to speak to tho Right Hon. R. «T. Seddon, Premier, when he comes to Auckland, in order that tho other newspaper may be stopped for over. We advise Segetin not to do work for which ho is not fit. Let him tako the advice of our Consul; let him take tho advico of other decent peoplo, beforo lie gels into trouble, before he goes to ruin. Wo advise our countryman Ruscovich, to look out for his hard-earned money; to have nothing to do willi Lucifer Big Donkey I. Segetin." His Worship: That seems very mild. What is the point of tho libel? "Donkoy"? (Laughter.) Mr. Napier said it was libel to call a man a loafer. Mr. Reed remarked that the translation lie had of the article was very mild, even milder than the alleged libel. Mr. Nicholas Green was agreed on by both sides as interpreter, and Mr. Napier proceeded to call evidence. Lovro Buneta, a farmer, residing at Orowa, said he remembered Friday evening, Juno 23. Ho was that evening at the boardinghouse of Joseph Franich, Princes-street. While there lie was given a copy of tho Bratska Sloga, dated May 29. Ho read tho articlo headed "Danica." The prosecutors name was mentioned in the articlo. Mr. Reed asked tho witness to read tho Croatian original of tho alleged libel in a copy of Bratska Sloga. Witness paused, and looked uncomfortable, held tho paper at various peculiar angles, and after turning it round several times and holding it upsido down, said ho could not find tho place. had better start at the very begin"You had better start at the very beginning and work down," said His Worship. Witness fumbled away steadily at tho paper, but did not read any of (lie contents to tho Court, which caused His Worship to say: " Will you read what your eyes aro running over now? Any part will do for Mr. Reed. Stand up and let me hear you." Thus urged, tho witness plunged desperately into tho task of reading tho article. He had not, however, translated more than one or two words before ho stopped short. , . . . . "Hard work?" sympathetically inquired His Worship. . , ~ Witness smiled, as if lie enjoyed reading the paper, and started again, hut only to stop rather soonor than Wore. _ , "Spell tho hard words,' said His Worship. Then eavno a rapid mumbling, almost inaudible to tho Court, and quite unintelligible. "Witness, read out loud, ordered His at last managed to translate tho ar Mr.° Reed: Do you understand what you have been reading? , Witness: I don't understand all that it means. " , _ Mr. Reed (to tho interpreter): Can you understand him. The interpreter: Oh, yes. . M , Mr. Heed said he had been informed that the witness could not possibly be understood, as ho was mispronouncing the words. His Worship Oil, well, ho can read, at any rato. I was beginning to flunk that lie could not read at all. . Georgo Sutton, lawyers clerk, deposed that ho bought a copy of the Bratska Sloga at tho publishing office. , Franchiscovich, another witness, who said ho was capable of interpreting the Croatian languago into tho English language, said " tova" in the alleged libellous article meant " thick-head—an ass. Thick-headed liko an "Ilia Worship: What we call a dunce? Witness: Exactly. Witness, continuing, explained that tlio word was ono that they had used at school as " little boys." Whon asked what "gadding meant, by which ho translated "loafing about and ' 4 wild life," witness said it was killing time here and there, without any real sentiment in No sentimental walks, suggested His WorMr. Reed: Just look at the word you have Mr. Rood: Just look at the word you have translated, " revolution," will you? Could not that word bo equally well translated excitement?" Witness: It might be disturbance, or commotion. His Worship: 1 suppose wo can breathe freely now. Mr. Reed (to witness): What you have translated as an " ungodly lie," might not that bo translated as a lie in the sight of God?

Witness: Yes. Mr. Reed: Could not the passage, " Danica is shameless news, from beginning to end on the wrong road," be equally well interpreted, " Danica, unfortunate newspaper, is from beginning to end on the wrong road." ' Witness: Yes. , j Mr. Reed submitted that on such inter- I pretation there was 110 libel. His Worship: The gist of the whole thing seems to be that the plaintiff, an uneducated man, started a newspaper through spite. (To witness): Is the article likely to oause damage and disgrace to plaintiff among his countrymon ? Witness thought it would. Henry Wilson doposed that the firm of Wilson and Horton had printed 1000 copies of the Brateka Sloga, a receipt for which had been signed by Anton Bulat. Witness was not in a position to swear that the signature was that of the defendant. Mr. Napier: The signature is admitted, I believe. Mr. Reed said that they admitted nothing. Mr. Napier then put in the receipt produced by witness, with a view to showing that the defendant was tlio publisher of the Bratska Sloga. His Worship remarked that there was no connection between the Anton Bulat in the document and the defendant, the signature not having been proved. John Bilich, a Dalmatian boardinghousekeeper in Auokland, deposed that the article stated that " we advise all you to keep away from what you are unfit for;" "but," said the witness, " wo all talk different in Dalmatia.' (Laughter.) _ Mr. Napier asked the witness just to read the article, without making any remarks. When the witness came to _ tho word "Lucifer," he had some trouble in explaining the term to the Court. Mr. Napier: Who is Lucifer? Witness: Well, I should say he was some sort of'a devil. His Worship: What reason havi you for saying that Lucifer is a devil? Witness: Well, my mother often told me so. (Laughter.) £.- ; " . "* Mr. Napier asked witness the meaning of the word-" (donkey). Witness said if anyone used such an expression to him, ho would take it as an "insult," and lie would be very much offended. ■ ; V ' '■ ;T: r ,1 , -Mr. Reed: Have you ever been called a " toYa?''- al' school. ' v V " - ;: v f , , V •. - ■ - v- • .

■ Witness: Well, I may have been called a " tovar." • (Laughter.) ■ George Bognich said he knew that the defendant was the publisher of the Bratsk* Sloga, because he (the defendant) had told witness so.

Nicholas Breeanovich, tobacconist, carrying on business in Victoria-street, said he had read the article in the Bratska Sloga. Mr. Napier asked the witness what he thought of it? Mr. Reed objected to the question, and His Worship upheld the objection. Mr. Napier said such questions had been admitted in the Court before. His Worship said if they had, he was quite sure that they had been wrongly admitted. Mr. Napier then asked the witness what a "tovar was?

Witness: "Tovar?" of course, nothing else but a " tovar." (Laughter.) His Worship said it was impossible to treat the case seriously. Mr. Napier said he would show His Worship that in other cases similar to the one before the Court, conviotions had been recorded and damages recovered. Ivan Segetin, tho informant in the ease, also gave evidence in support of the proseoution. Ho stated that he was the person referred to in the article. He was the first person to propose starting a Dalmatian newspaper in Auckland. The article hurt his feelings. It was not true that he had ever been roaming about the streets without any settled occupation. It was not true that he was ever wanting a day's work with a mule in Austria, or that he had led a thriftless life in America. Witness had studied the English language in Auckland, and outside the colony, for seven years. Mr. Napier: Is Lucifer your name? Witness: No. Lucifer is tho biggest man in hell. Ho was a thief—a bad man— thing that was bad. Mr. Reed: I am afraid that this is distinctly slanderous on Lucifer. (Laughter.) His Worship: You don't belicvo that "it is bettor to reign in hell than serve in heaven." You don't know Milton, I suppose? His Worship added that ho had always understood that Lucifer was a very proud man. "Proud as Lucifer." His Worship then asked the witness if l»o knew Beelzebub. Witness said he did not, and His Worship congratulated witnoss upon the fact. This concluded tho evidence for tho prosecution, and Mr, Napier then addressed the Court, submitting that tho evidence was sufficient to justify His Worship in committing tho defendant for trial at the Suprome Court. Mr. Napier said it had been held that the word "dunce" was libellous. His Worship: What was the informant? Mr. Napier: Ho was a barrister. The libel was, " He is a dunce, and will get little by the law." Mr. Rood: Probably it will be useful for Tour Worship to know that that case was decided in 1635. Counsel for the prosecution, continuing, said he submitted confidently upon the cases that he had quoted from that there was a case of libal. His Worsliip, in giving judgment, said that iu his opinion thero was no case to answer. It was his opinion that it would be a wrong thing if ho sent the case up for trial. Tho utmost ho could seo in the case was that a man, who was not editor, but proprietor of a "paper, charged anotliei with being a "dunce." The information would be dismissed. Mr. Reed applied for costs against tho prosecutor, but His Worship held that he had no power to grant them.