Baroni v. Ardery

38 P.2d 810, 2 Cal. App. 2d 690, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1495
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedDecember 8, 1934
DocketCiv. No. 8290
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 P.2d 810 (Baroni v. Ardery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baroni v. Ardery, 38 P.2d 810, 2 Cal. App. 2d 690, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1495 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Opinion

HOUSER, J.

Under the statutory provisions of sections 4458 to 4465, inclusive, of the Political Code, which relate to what may be termed substantive law, as well as procedure, in connection with publications in newspapers required to be given or made respectively by state, county, city or other officers, a newspaper known as “L’ltalo-Americano” petitioned the superior court for its order by which, if granted, [691]*691said newspaper would be adjudged a newspaper of general circulation, as defined in section 4460 of the Political Code. To such petition a contest was filed by appellant herein. From a decree by the trial court in favor of the petitioner, an appeal has been taken to this court.

By section 4460 of the Political Code a newspaper of general circulation is thus defined:

“A newspaper of general circulation is a newspaper published for the dissemination of local or telegraphic news and intelligence of a general character, having a bona fide subscription-list of paying subscribers, and which shall have been established, printed and published at regular intervals, in the state, county, city, city and county, or town, where such publication, notice by publication, or official advertising is given or made, for at least one year preceding the date of such publication, notice or advertisement. A newspaper devoted to the interests, or published for the entertainment or instruction of a particular class, profession, trade, calling, race, or denomination, or for any number of such classes, professions, trades, callings, races or denominations when the avowed purpose is to entertain or instruct such classes, is not a newspaper of general circulation.”

For present purposes only, without being so conceded or decided, it may be assumed that, as far as concerns the Italian subscribers to the newspaper, generally speaking the newspaper met the statutory requirements, and that, excepting for the fact that it was published almost entirely in the Italian language, it was entitled to the order or judgment made by the superior court. In that regard, it is admitted that all but a single page of the newspaper was printed in the Italian language, and that ordinarily, as set forth in appellant’s brief herein, such single page “contains more or less stereotyped matter, including lessons in Italian, publicity matters from the moving picture studios and some articles on history, together with school notes. The school notes relate more or less to matters affecting the Italian people. There is no attempt to publish general news in this English section, and it was not the purpose of the publishers, in printing the English section, to advise the English-speaking people of the news of the day. Sometimes editorials are carried in the English section, but in general the matters appearing in the English section are matters [692]*692referring to the schools or concerning people of the moving picture colony.”

On the hearing of the petition, the editor of the newspaper testified: “We do not have as our purpose in printing the English section, telling the English-speaking people the news of the day. Practically all of the news of the day that we publish is published in Italian. I know of some of our subscribers who do not speak or write Italian. I could hardly say as to how many. I know personally of four or five who do not speak Italian but who subscribe to the newspaper. These are not advertisers in the newspaper. All of our advertisements are in Italian. It was our purpose wrhen we established this newspaper to have a vehicle for disseminating news among the Italian people, and we do not as the main purpose expect to have it as a medium for the disseminating of general news to the English-speaking or Spanish-speaking or German-speaking people. In general we try to get the general news of all the world, but we give a little more emphasis upon matters concerning Italy than the rest of the hews. We thought that the people who would subscribe to our newspaper would be more interested in the matters affecting the Italian people. It was not only our purpose in printing the page in English to educate the Italian people in the English language, but also to have a page dedicated to some of the Italians and Americans that we have as subscribers. We have over 3.000 subscribers.”

The limited question, then, that is submitted for. determination by this court is whether a newspaper published in a foreign language can be said to be of “general circulation” within the meaning and intent of section 4460 of the Political Code, section 24 of article IV of the Constitution of this state, and the several statutes relating to publications generally, when it appears that such foreign newspaper contains but a single page printed in English of miscellaneous matter not devoted to the “dissemination of local or telegraphic news and intelligence of a general character”.

The only ease to which attention has been directed that deals with such a situation, decided by either of the appellate tribunals of this state, is that of Richardson v. Tobin, 45 Cal. 30, wherein, without any particular discussion of the [693]*693question here under consideration, it was held that: “Where ■ a statute requires a notice to be published in a daily newspaper, but does not specify the particular language in which it must be published, a publication in a German newspaper, but in the English language, is sufficient.” (Syllabus.)

In other jurisdictions, to the same effect, see Wakeley v. Nicholas, 16 Wis. 588, 612; John v. Connell, 64 Neb. 233 [89 N. W. 806] ; also Id., 71 Neb. 10 [98 N. W. 457].

In Alfonso v. Alfonso, 99 Misc. 550, 165 N. Y. Supp. 1937, it was held that the publication of a summons in Italian in an Italian newspaper was ineffective, even “though both parties to the action were Italian”. Nevertheless it was therein said that: “It may be that the justice, in making the order of publication, had the discretion to designate this foreign language newspaper as one ‘most likely to give notice to the defendant’, but the publication should have been in English.”

On the other hand, in none of the cited cases in either of the other jurisdictions does it appear that the decision therein was made in the light of the provisions of a special statute that contained requirements such as are provided by section 4458 to section 4465, inclusive, of the Political Code of this state; and in that connection it should be specially noted that although the case of Richardson v. Tobin, 45 Cal. 30, was decided by the Supreme Court of this state in 1872, it was not until the year 1903 that the several special statutes that particularly relate to the question here at issue, and to which statutes attention hereinbefore has been directed, were enacted.

By section 24 of article IV of the Constitution of this state, in part it is provided that, “ ... all laws of the state of California, and all official writings, and the executive, legislative, and judicial proceedings, shall be conducted, preserved, and published in no other than the English language ’ ’.

And as a further indication of general legislative intent with reference to the language in which the affairs of the state should be conducted, it may not be amiss to note that section 3.40 of the School Code contains a provision by which it is declared that “all schools must be taught in the English language”.

[694]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re L'Italo-Americano
38 P.2d 810 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 P.2d 810, 2 Cal. App. 2d 690, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baroni-v-ardery-calctapp-1934.