THE PRINCES STREET FRACAS.

Evening Star, Issue 2798, 5 February 1872, Page 2

THE PRINCES STREET FRACAS.

On Thursday last, when Signor Cagli, of the Opera Company, gave the editor of “ Graham's Review” a good kicking for publishing a slander concerning Madame Cagli, formed the subject of an enquiry before the Mayor at the Mayor’s Court this morning. A good deal of interest appeared to be taken in the proceedings, for not only was the body of the Court filled; but the approaches were crowded. On the case of Graham y, Cagli being called on, Tlie complainant explained that the affair arose out of an article'which appeared ip his Review. The law of libel, he went on to say, was sufficiently strong against the publisher and printer for anything that was written in the review; that |he believed V chad written nothing which referred to any individual; that as it turned out Signor Cagli, “from his credentials,” was a gentleman, he was very sorry if he had given him any offence. Mr John Cargill had spoken to him about the paragraph, which he said referred to a lady who had been a guest of his ; and he (Graham) had expressed his sorrow, and promised to state the facts in his next Review, If Mr Smith was agreeable he' withdraw the ease, and as there had beeu a little annoyance, he would withdraw the second information on payment of costs.

Mr Jag. Smith, who appeared for the defendant, said he would not enter into any compromise. Graham, then stepped into the box and gave his evidence, which was to the following effectOn Thursday Signor Cagli had been goipg about the streets looking for him. When he (Grebam) was standing opposite the Empire, a man named Smith came forward and asked him what he had been aaying in his Review about the Opera Company. He thought the man had come down from the stables and wanted to buy a Review, and he was just going to take out a copy when Smith struck him in the face, knocking him down, while Signor Cagli, who stood at Fraser’s (the saddler) corner, came forward and kicked him three times, saying “ I will kill yea; f will kill you-” Two nights before Signor" GagK had' tpreatpped ffim that he would strike him whepeypr he met him in the street. He also asked him to apologise, and he (Graham) replied that he did not see anything to apologise for, as “ ho did not see that the thing affected him in any way.” The cross-exami-nation topk place follows ;—Will you swear you did not fepow the reason Sigpor Cagli called upon you for an apology ? I do not.—Did you not then give him cause for offence ? I can’t see that I did.—Were you the writer of this article—(article produced) ? Yes.—Was that written previous to Signor Cagli calling on you? Yes.— Did not Signor Cagli refer to it when ho spo|:e to you ? He did not refer to thav particular pa&§agp.—Dpi he refer to apy offensive article which’ had' appeared in your “ Review” ? He spoke of the “Review.” because 1 sold him a paper at the tobacconist’s.—When ho spoke to you did he not refer to the particular passage I have just read? No, I can’t see there was apy reason for his doing so; there was nothing ip it tp give offence.—Now, Mr Graham, OP your oath does pqt this paragraph refer to Signor Cagll’s wife, as the lady who went sway in a buggy? I will swear that is does pot,—Then what was your reason for giving the explanation you gave to bis Worship just now ? My reason was that Mr John Cargill had come to me and said the lady 1 had spoken about had been a guest at his house ; that she Was a r#al lady ; and he had felt offended at the way I had spokep 6f her, I said I Was sorry, and Signor'Cagli a wife was not the lady,—Then ffbo i« the lady you refer to 7 X can’t tell you.—Dues it refer to anybody in particular ? I can't tell you. Yet you say, “I am credibly informed, &c. ” 1 did not know to whom it aduded.—Did not Signor Cagli inform you it was understood te refer to his wife ? Not at that time. — when did you understand it did ? Not' until Mr 1 Cargill spoke to pic —I believe you are in the habit of writing personal attacks IP your Review ? I don’t think so. My Review has a very good, wide, re» spectable circulation. (Laughter).—Very respectable indeed, I should think. A witness gsve evidence as to the assault. Mr Smith, addressing the Court, admitted the assault, which subjected the defendant to a penalty, but he hoped it would be the smallest one ffbssible, -because the provocation givep had been of - the mbit extreme

deliberate attack upon the character' o| defendant’s wife. It did not need ; proofs because it was self-evident, to show who was referred to in the paragraph ; but he would call evidence on the point. In it she was held up to public scorn,‘as one who had been perfidious to her husband. It needed no words of his to explain what were the incensed feelings of her husband, upon seeing the paragraph ; it was a wonder more serious damage had not been done the plaintiff by the defendant, who seemed to have been content with marking his contempt of him by kicking him. It was a wellmerited degradation for a most dastardly attack upon an undefended female. It was perfectly monstrous that the characters of respectable ladies should be at the mercy of a miscreant 1 ke the plaintiff, who stood at street corners and sold such vile trash. He hoped that, while vindicating the law, his Worship would mark his sense of the plaintiff’s conduct by imposing a very small fine. F. Smith, machinistjto the Opera company said he understood the paragraph referred to alluded to Madame Cagli. His Worship said : Tb6re is no doubt that in this case, as the counsel for the defendant has said, an assault has been committed; and to that extent the defendant has brought himself under the lash of the law. But in considering cases of this nature, the Bench is bound to consider what amount of provocation has been given by the person assaulted. In the case before the Court, there cannot be the slightest doubt that a very gross—further, a very violent—attack has bsen made upon the reputation of a highly respectable lady. The p aintiff’s excuse, that he did not know whether the lady referred to wasMadameCagliornot, amounts t ) nothing; because the offence would be equally great if committed against any other lady of the troupe as against Madame Cagli. There can be no doubt if any person is allowed to commit these slanders without some check being put upon him as has been done in this case, society itself will not be safe. The reputation of the mother, wife, or sister, of any man among us will not be safe for a single moment if articles of this kind are allowed to be published. I understand that this journal is said to represent the working men of Dunedin. I would simply say to the working men, you may rely upon it, if you encourage attacks of this kind upon persons who are your betters in position for the time, you do not know how soon similar attacks wdl be made, upon your own wives and sisters. (There was an attempt at applause, which was immediately suppressed.) The same feelings which animated the defendant in this case would naturally animate them in a similar case ; therefore no false feelings of sjunpathy with any one class should, in the breasts of the people 1 refer to, excite sympathy for the iudividual who publishes articles of this kind. No words that I can use as a magistrate are sufficiently strong to express my feeling towards persons guilty of publishing articles of this bind. At the same time, the Bench is bound to vindicate the law by inflicting a penalty upon the defendant ; bat it will be such a penalty as will mark its sense of the plaintiff’s conduct, and be sufficient to vindicate the majesty of the law. The defendant will be fined one farthing, without costs. Frederick Smith was charged with assaulting John Graham at the same time and place. His Worship said the remarks he made ip the last case did not apply in the present, 1 The same amount of provocation was not given, and the defendant being an Englishman, knew he was not justified in taking the law into his own hands. He was fined 20s and costs.