La libera parola. [volume] (Philadelphia, Pa.) 1918-1969, 1922-07-08

settlement was reached was
identical to the one which had
been made by Anthony Zaffi-
no TO NJ. G. Albert, acting for
the prosecutor some time before
the trial of the case and which
the prosecutor refused to accept,
1t is, therefore, puerile and
unfair for the prosecutor and
his friends to state that the
settlement was entirely to his
or their liking. If this We're true,
how do they explain the extreme
unwillingness of the prosecutor
to accept this compromise when
the defendants offer was com
municated to him by his attor-
ney and his disapproval of the
Courts directing a verdict of
not guilty? 1t would be more
truthful and fair to state that
it was a compromise imposed IL
pom both parties by the resolu-
te stand taken by the Court to
dispose of the case without a
trial.
That the trial Judge was di-
sgusted with having to try libel
cases involving Italians is un-
mistakably evidenced by his
remarks when ne states, Il want
10 say for the benefit of all the
Italians and especially the de
fendant that this sort Of thing
must not happen again. The
peaple of Berks Country are
getting very tired of such cases
being brought into Court and
the Court having to settle di-
sputcS between these Italians.
This is the second case that I
have tried and it is virtually
about the same natter
1t must be remembered that
this case was not fully tried, as
was the previous case to which
the Court refers and which la
sted three days in criminal
court and part of a day in the
civil court. The only evidence
before the Court was that of the
prosecutor himself based upon
translations of the alleged incri-
minating articles made by HIM
SELF WHICH WERE INCOR-
RECT, INCOMPRENHENSI-
BILE, ARTFULLY COLORED
AND EXAGGERATED. The de-
fense did not have an opportu-
nifty to show under what circum-
stances and provocation the
alleged libellous articles We're
written. 1t did not get the oppor-
tunity to introduce in evidence
several libellous publications
written by the prosecutor which
would have shown to the Court F.
and jury that this prosecu-
tor was by no means an angel; f.
and that, if there had been some
harsh words and strong langua-
ge directed at the prosecutor, he
had brought it upon himself by
having written and published f.
various libellous articles against
the defendant. The defense was
not given the opportunity of
showing that the much capita
lied word 'mantenuto" did not, |
by the context of the article in
which it was used, convey to
any one but the prosecutor any
immoral meaning or accusation. /.
Considered in the light of all
these facts and circumstances, |
it can readily be seen that the
rather sharp remarks of the
Court We're the result of it's
utter disgust at having to de-
vote the precious time of the .
Court to the trial of libel cases
between Italians, rather than a .
direct reproch to the defendant .
whom it did not know and who .
had had no opportunity of pre-
'enting his case to the Court .
and jury.
The Court very properly took
advantage of this occasion to di- /
the publication of at
.acks and accusations which .
night be productive of crimi-
nal actions, much to the annoy
lnce of the Court and the citi-
,ens Of Berks Country.
In conclusion, | wish to state
hat the verdict Of NOT GULL
EY was the result of a compro-
mise imposed upon the parties
ly the attitude of the trial jud-
ge; that the correction of the
meaning which the prosecutor
persisted in affixing to the word
'mantenuto" was purely a vo-
untary one and in consonance
with the context of the article
n which it was used; and that
he remarks of the trial Judge
we're the result of his righteous
iisgust at having to preside
,VpT the trial of Iapur+byv o,,I