THE PIOUS PEMNY "POST."

NZ Truth, Issue 62, 25 August 1906, Page 5

THE PIOUS PEMNY "POST."

CHAMPION OF THE CAUSE OF SOCIAL PURITY

Prosecuted, and Convicted o! Printing Immoral Postcards.

Worse Than Selling Them, and Yet the Influential " Post " Gets Off with a Ughter Sentence than the Shopkeeper.

At the Magistrate's Court, yesterday morning, before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., Charles Stubbs, secretary of the "Evening Post Newspaper •C 0.," was char-red with having on May 1, 1906, sold to Norman Aitken postcards which. were of an immoral nature.

• A plea of guilty was entered and Chief Detective McGrath said the defendant was secretary of the "Evening Post Newspaper C 0.," which had printed a large number of post-cards to the order of one Norman Aitkon.- A peculiar feature of the case was that while the "Evening Post" was vigorously condemning the traffic m post-cards and hounding - thc police onto vendors - thereof* the Company printed and sold cards dt the description of ohe> handed up to the- Bench. The Company 1 had, on becoming aware, through police court proceedings m one casa, that the cards were of an immoral nature, withdrawn the whole of them from sale.

Mr Skerrett, who appeared for Stubbs.said that the defendant was secretary of the company. Counsel was instructed to say that neither Stubbs nor any responsible officer of the Comapny had cogni'-iahce of the nature of the card m question. Chief Detective McGrath's reference to the conduct of the "Evening Post" was auite uncalled for, as would be made clear. He (Mr Skerrett) did not consider that the card m question was immoral , or having a pernicious tendency, and the Bench would have the greatest difficulty m coming to the conclusion that the card was an infringement of the Act. The subject of. the card was a humorous one* being a. skit upon the professional blind man. whose simulation of blindness was thus exposed, and he considered that the greatest prude could not take exception to it. There was nothing indecent iv the card, and only m a prurient mind could lewd thoughts be suggested. Though the Company had thought fit to plead guilty, it was bccausel they wished to avoid any appearance of having friven their approval or encouragement to the printing of cards which were immoral amL pernicious. It .was true that the "Post" had consistently urged the suppression off immoral Dost-cards and they ha>d evinced their sincerity by at once abandoning any question of whether the cards were immoral and an infringement of the Statute which dealt with post-cards of an- immoral nature. The feeling animating the proprietors of the pancr was this:. Whether the card was immoral or not they considered no useful purpose could be. served by raising that question. The cards were printed to . thc order of Norman Aitken in -the. prdiharv way of business, by the jobbing department of the paper. This department wr.s m the charge of a foreman who exercised his own judgment^ the printing of cards. Tho card m rmestiou came before him m the usual way and he had previously rejected cards of a dubitable nat-uro. though they had not been sent m 'by tha' dealer m ouestion. The foreman took the card and did not consider it of an immoral character ; he did nob consult an*- superior officer but acted m good faith and used his own judgment that the T ' were not hurtful to the community. Mr Sksrrett, submitted that the offence was oi a technical character and he trusted that a nominal fine would be inflicted.

After hearin-tr the evidence of Thos. Jones, the foreman m question, ru the printing of the card, Mr Riddell said that the card was not immoral m one sense, though it did not serve any p-ood purpose. The foreman of the jobbing department who exercised his own judgment m this matter, might be of a humorous turn of mind. Looking at the card one might have discovered a humorous side, others might look at it from quite a different view. Tt was difficult to know where the line should be drawn. All men's minds were not constituted alike. He (Mr Riddell) did not consider the card of a gross nature, it was nurely a matter of degree m the m-intine. Tho defendant .would be fined £3 and costs.