The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1883-08-25
LIBEL.
One Paper Sues Another for Damages.
BUSHMAN.

| One Paper Sues Another for Damages.
| Honolulu does not stand alone in the
matter of libel suits during the current year.
! In the month of June last, James Bulgin,
| editor and business manager of the China
Mail, a daily newspaper printed and pub
| lished in Hongkong, claimed damages to
| the extent of $1,000 from Robert Fraser
| Smith proprietor and publisher of the
HongkOng Telegraph, also daily newspa-
per in the same colony. The following
words having appeared in the Telegraph
were quoted in the plaintiffs petition,
"Who. it may be asked, is the mighty
authority of the China Mail? We answer,
a person named Bulgin, (meaning thereby
the plaintiff, James Bulgin) whose Journal
istic experiences prior to coming to China
were confined to Police Court reporting for
a low class paper called the UerkenaDeU
Ne1OS, (meaning that before coming to Chi
ma as editor of the China Mail aforesaid, he
the said James Bulgin had had no expert
ence in any editorial capacity and was not
qualified to take, the editorship of respec-
table newspaper and was a man of low
character and vulgar associations). This
genius, after proving an utter failure on the
China Mail, (meaning it be understood
thereby that he, the said James Bulgin, had
been formerly connected with the China
HdU newspaper, and had been unable to
perform the duties required of him in con-
nection therewith) successfully tried Shang-
hal and Yokohama, with equally Indifferent
results"
And again.
"Mr. Bulgin (meaning thereby the plain
tiff is at present welding the scissors and
paste brush for the fish wrapper" (mean-
ing thereby the said China Mail newspa-
per- during the temporary absence of Mr..
Murray Balm and he would be wise to con-
fine himself to the use of these necessary
adjuncts Ofjournalistic success (meaning
thereby that he, the said James Bulgin,
was unable to perform his duties as editor
of the said newspaper, the China Mail, and
to write leading or other articles for the col
umns thereof, and was entirely dependant
upon extracts from other papers to fill up
the columns of the China MdiL.)
And lastly "there cannot be the slightest
justification for the sneering impertinence
of shallow-pated puppy (meaning thereby
the plaintiff, James Rulgin) whose cheek
is his strongest point"
And the plaintiff claims damages $1,000
and costs of suit.
The defendant admitted the publication
of the several paragraphs but denied that
they were capable of the meaning ascribe
to them. The case was heard before the
Puisne Judge and special jury. verdict
was rendered for plaintiff with 500 dam
ages. Since the Telegraph was started,
now about two years ago, Mr.. Fraser-Sn,ith
has been convicted of libel three times.
On one occasion he was incarcerated for
two months and fined 81 ,O00 His Lordship
in summing up said, "Mr. Fraser-Smith
started by telling them (the jury) there was
no such thing known before as one editor
suing another for libel. Now he was wrong
there--the books were full of such cases
but the rule was that if one editor libelled
another, and the other replied to him, then
they were left to fight it out, but the per-
son injured might, in the first instance, if he
chose, seek redress in court of law for the
injury done him. In conclusion his Lo rd-
ship said Mr.. Fraser-Smith had put before
the jury every point he could in his own
defence and tried to show that Mr.. Bulgin
was not likely to suffer much injury, but
every man was entitled to his character"