« PreviousContinue »
that he had begun by saying, in the same deposition, that Mr. Rainford was vexed (inquietato.) And, if he was vexed because he had been asked for his name, he could not have been calm.
“But Mr. Rainford did not limit himself to such expressions, because according to the declarations of the two Gullottas, and of Portatore also, he seems to have added the threat, • This is an act for which I shall make you pay dearly!' (Questo è un atto che vi farò pagare a caro prezzo.) And one of them also adds that the word “coglione' was used. (Fool, or cowardly wretch.)
“ But to this, it has been answered that this portion of the evidence rested upon the testimony of two witnesses only, and not having been corroborated by the many (tanti) others who were also present at the time, no credence ought to be given to it.
“ But if we consider that in an altercation at which a large number of persons were present, not every word uttered could be caught up by every one, and that if some words were heard by some persons, and other words by other persons, it could not, for all that, be said that there was a contradiction, inasmuch as it might very well happen that both sets of words had really been uttered.
“ The defence set forth that the Brigadier and attendant Carabinier were intoxicated, and that they were returning from a Ball: five witnesses were called for this part of the defence ; but, with the exception of one, who merely said that he had seen one private Carabinier dancing, all the others said the reverse.
" It was also alleged that the Vice-Brigadier was actuated by a motive of revenge in what took place, but for this part of the defence, with the exception of the deposition of Mr. Rainford's housekeeper, Teresina Lombardo, which besides was contradicted by her own brother-in-law, Marziano, all the other five witnesses set down for the defence were negative.
“In the Appeal, and during the public hearing, Mr. Rainford produced in the course of his defence, two letters directed to the English Consul-General, by the Prefecture of Messina, dated the 19th and 25th of September, 1876, from which it would appear that the Syndic of Taormina had been suspended, and that the Vice-Brigadier had been removed to another place; but these documents besides having been produced too late, and being also contradicted by the Public Prosecutor, who attributed to quite a different cause the steps taken by the political authorities, by their contents did not deny that Mr. Rainford in a rough manner refused to give his name to the Vice-Brigadier, who did not know him; but, after all, these steps which had been taken in the ordinary course of routine and discipline, and perhaps also for reasons of convenience and prudence, cannot influence in any way the judicial mind, which is exclusively competent to weigh criminal actions, and to deliver with prudence and wisdom adequate judgments after a solemn and public trial, founded on sworn evidence, and with all the guarantees that the law can give for the protection of the honour and liberty of the citizen. From the facts proved it seems that the examination to be made is very simple.
“And firstly, taking the first ground of the defendant's appeal, upon which judgment was given by the Court below (primo decidente) when brought for hearing, inasmuch as the law does not require, in cases where a Praetor is competent to decide, that a notice of the witnesses for the prosecution shall be furnished, the omission in the list furnished of the witness Rasconi would not have been an adequate cause for not permitting his examination at the public hearing, seeing that he was legally and in proper time summoned, and by a separate and distinct summons, as he resided in Messina and not in Taormina like all the others.
“ And if in the citation served upon the defendant there were set down the witnesses residing in Taormina and in Mola, this was done by the Praetor in order to issue one decree (ordinanza) only, and not because it was so ordained by law, and therefore the defendant could have had no right whatever to pretend that the witness Rasconi should have been included in the aforesaid list.
“ As regards the merits (in merito), it is true, indeed, that when Mr. Rainford was requested by the Vice-Brigadier to give his name, he answered : 'I shall not give (daro) my name either to you or to God. And this even independently of the subsequent uttering of the words, “I shall make you pay dearly for this.'
“Is it also true that these words were uttered in a loud voice by Mr. Rainford in the presence of many persons, in a harsh tone and in an excited manner, against a Brigadier of the Royal Carabiniers whilst in the execution of his duty ? Lastly, if such be the case, do such words constitute the offence contemplated by the law ?
“There is no doubt that the Vice-Brigadier went into the Contrada Rocca (Rocca Street) to see that order was preserved, and that he was discharging his duties. It has also been fully
proved that he, having perceived Mr. Rainford, whom he said he did not know, in company with another unknown person, in a courteous and polite manner asked for their names.
" It cannot be denied that, according to the laws of Public Security, and also the Penal Code, the agents and officers of the Public Force have the right on such occasions to ask for the names of all unknown parties, and these latter are bound to give the same, and that if they merely refuse to comply, or give an untrue answer, they render themselves liable to be prosecuted.
“But in the case under examination it is no question of a mere refusal or untruth; it is question of an angry reply, which, owing to the way in which it was given, and to the place and to the number of people collected, assumed the character of contempt against the authorities (il principio di autorità), which at the time were represented by the agents of the Public Force.
"If such scandal had been lightly passed over by the Royal Carabiniers who received the insult, it would have diminished (esautorato) that prestige which must surround every public officer when performing his duties. In such obedience and respect there is nothing derogatory, because the deference paid to the agents of the Public Force is not personal, but paid to the representative authority with which they are clothed, to the Law, for the supreme guarantee of civil liberty; and every act of disobedience, every act of contempt, constitutes an affront which ought to be deplored and repressed.
“And it was an act of wrongheaded (mal sentito, mal concepito) pride, on Mr. Rainford's part, to have answered in a harsh and scornful manner a question put by a public officer, who had the right to put the same, the question having been put in a courteous and polite manner, and in the presence of a large number of people, and in a place of amusement.
" It was an act of contempt to refuse in such a manner and with that fierceness (fierezza) which is evidenced by that expression, • I shall not give my name either to you or to your God !' (al vostro Dio.) And here it is to be noted that all this took place before Mr. Rainford was told to consider himself in custody.
“Our Civil Laws are very generous in granting to strangers the enjoyment of all civil rights without taking into account the principle of reciprocity; but strangers must not take advantage of their condition; they must pay due respect to the laws of the State, and as they are admitted on an equality with citizens to enjoy the benefits of such rights, they, on the other hand, are
also subject to all the penal laws of police and public security, which guarantee and ensure their liberty and their property.
“This much as regards the appeal of the Defendant.
“And now, turning to the appeal lodged by the Public Prosecutor, the Court does not find sufficient reason to reverse (riformare) the first judgment on the case passed by the local Praetor, who fully took into consideration all the circumstances (circostanze prudenziali) which induced him to inflict a pecuniary punishment only.
“For these reasons, and also considering that the two abovementioned appeals were lodged in proper time, and according to the prescribed legal rules, and also considering that every judgment against carries costs : The Court
“Receives, as correct in form, the appeals lodged both by Mr. Rainford and by the Public Prosecutor, and as to their merits, in compliance with Article 365 of the Code of Penal Procedure, in giving judgment upon them rejects them both, confirms the sentence appealed against, and sends back the same to the Praetor, in order that he may see the same fully carried out:
“ Condemns the appellant in the greater costs of the present suit of appeal.
“ Publicly pronounced at the sitting by the Acting President in the presence of the Public Prosecutor, of the Vice-Chancellor, and of the appellant. “In Messina, this day, the 14th of August, 1877.
(Signed) “ G. DI STEFANO Nicolosi.
“ G. Melita.
“Certified as a true copy, given at the request of the King's Procurator-General.
“ The Vice-Chancellor, (Signed) “Amato Grio.”
[Since going to press we learn, by telegraph, that the Supreme Court at Palermo has reversed the sentence confirmed by the Appellate Court of Messina.-ED.]
Legal Obituary of the Quarter.
July. 29. Alderson, Alfred, Esq., Solicitor, Eckington, aged 61 Admitted 1840.
16. Brooke, William, Esq., Solicitor, Margate, aged 72. Admitted 1827.
18. CARDALE, John Bate, Esq., Solicitor, aged 75.
29. Hunt, Right Hon. George Ward, M.P., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-law, aged 52. Called 1851. Son of the late Rev. George Hunt, of Wadenhoe, Northamptonshire, by Emma, daughter of the late Samuel Gardiner, Esq., of Coombe Lodge, Oxon. Educated at Eton and Ch. Ch. Oxon; B.A. (2nd class in Classics), 1848; M.A., 1851; hon. D.C.L., 1870. Practised for a few years, going the Oxford Circuit; and subsequently became Chairman of the Northamptonshire Quarter Sessions. After two failures to secure a seat in Parliament, was returned in December, 1857, for North Northamptonshire. In 1874, was appointed by Mr. Disraeli First Lord of the Admiralty.
28. Jay, George, Esq., Solicitor, Norwich, aged 83.
28. Milroy, William Muir, Esq., Advocate (Scot.) Called 1868.
22. O'LOGHLEN, Right Hon. Sir Colman, Bart., Q.C. (Irel.), M.P. Eldest son of the late Sir Michael O'Loghlen, Master of the Rolls in Ireland. Called to the Irish Bar in 1840. Judge Advocate-General under Mr. Gladstone's Government of 1868. The title has devolved on the brother of the deceased, now Sir Bryan O'Loghlen.
27. SANFORD, John Langton, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-law, aged 53. Called 1855. Educated at University Coll., London. Author of “Studies and Illustrations of the Great Rebellion” (1858); “ The Great Governing Families of England” (1865); and “Estimates of the English Kings” (1872).
29. Silk, Eyre, Esq., Solicitor (Irel.)