Alpena weekly argus. [volume] (Alpena, Mich.) 1871-1893, 1886-08-18
The Case of Cutting.

The case of A. X. Cutting, who ha!
been recently sentenced to one year,
imprisonment at hard labor and pay
n fine of $500 by the courts of the
Mexican State Of chihuahua for libel
ing q Mexican named Medina, has
given rise to much bad blood on the
Mexican frontier, and caused consid.
cradle commotion in the State De-
partment at Washington. The facts
of the case are these Cutting is the
editor and proprietor of a paper
printed in the Spanish language in
the Mexican Town Paso del Norte,
across the river from Ell Paso in Tex
as. A rival named Medina appeared
OH the ground and proposed to estab-
lish. another paper at Paso del Norte,
upon which Cutting violently assail-
ed and libeled him in his paper. Me-
dina had Cutting arrested and the
court compelled him to sign what they
call reconciliation" or paper de-
claring he would not again libel Me-
dina. Cutting was released and at
once went across the river to FL Paso
in Texas, where he published in n To-
cal paper q vicious libel on Medina,
calling him swindler, cheat and
deadbeat. The paper circulated
across the river, and on Cuttings re-
turn to his Office he was again arrest
ed for libel, and the result is as stated.
The Government of the United States,
through our Consul, raised the ques-
ton of jurisdiction, but to this the
State of chihuahua paid no attention,
but proceeded with the trial and sem
tence of Cutting, ignoring the de-
mands which the government had a
clear right to make.
1t has been the law of the world
since law was known that in these
casas the lex loci governs. If Mex
lean comes to the United States and
stabs man he is to be tried and pun
ished by the law of the place where
the crime was committed. So if Cut
t;ngs goes to Mexico and libels a citi-
zen of that republic he is to be tried
by the law of the place where the Ii
bel was committed. Cutting, how
ever, published his second libel of
Medina in Texas, which was a dis
.tinction which gave our minister the
right to have the point of jurisdiction
settled before Cutting was tried.
There is no doubt that under recent
decisions the court of chihuahua had
jurisdiction in this case. The recent
case of Cyrus w. Field against James
Gordon Bennett for libel, tried in
London, is almost exactly in point.
Mr.. Benefits paper, the New York
Herald, published matter in New
York deemed by Mr.. Field to be libel
Gus, and the action was brought. The
English court held that the publica-
ton of libel in New York and the
circulation of it in London made the
publisher liable in an action brought
in London by the party libeled who
was temporarily residing there. If,
therefore, Cuttings card in the Texas
paper circulated in Mexico, and it is
not probable Cutting would have so
published it if it did not circulate
there, then the jurisdiction of the
Mexican court was established. But
this point was not made, and the OBJ
lection to the jurisdiction Of the Mex
lean court is good until that jurisdic-
ton is established. 1t will be seen
that there is something of bubble
about this, but where two ncighbors
hate each other as cordially as do the
Mexicans and Texans a bubble is
sometimes a mountain to get over
Chicago News.