ALLEGED INDECENT LITERATURE.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 13427, 20 May 1909, Page 8

ALLEGED INDECENT LITERATURE.

WELLINGTON BOOKSELLER."* FINED.

(press association telegram.■> WELLINGTON, May lf>. Th<> re-hearing of the cases against several booksellers and others for edging certain copies of -Now Zealand Truth" alleged to contain parts of an indecent, immoral or obscene nature, was taken before Mr "W. G. Riddell. .S.M., in the Magistrate's Court to-day. Henry Wm. McCarthy was charged with selling, on February -'Oth, a certain copy ot the paper to Edwin iiiake. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr M. Mver.s conducted the prosecution and Mr T. M. U iiford and Mr A. Dunn deiended. Mr Myers, intimated that the information would lx; laid under the word '-indecent." Mr Wilford contended that according]? it must be proved that the questionable parts were not <>i an obscene or immoral character, lie considered that it wouid be difficult to discriminate between thoec two terms and that ot indecent. Webster gave the meaning of indecent as rilthy or obscene. Counsel urged that his Worship wouid ref|uire to specifically demonstrate the indecent part.';. The particular articles had been written to mend a sore; it the parts were not obscene or immoral he submitted that his Worship opuid not outer a fine. He held there was no indecency in the article within tiie meaning of the Act. Mr Myers maintained that although the articles were deemed to be ''indecent" in the information, it did not follow that the prosecution had abandoned the words ■-immoral" and ■ -obscene.' , -'Indecent" had been chosen ;is it was a word of the mildest quality. He contended that the particular article required to be looked at as a whole. It might not contain one filthy word ant] yet be so phrased as to convey an indecent meaning. If considered as a whole k must bo deemed to be indecent. His Worship intimated that he had looked into the articles alleged to be indecent. After reading them he formed an opinion as to the question of indecency and after hearing Mr Wilford ho still held to his opinion. The articles appeared in a newspaper which was. sold indiscriminately. Every class —boys, girls and adults^- might read the.m if they chose. In his opinion the articles were indecent, and if ho was wrong the decision might be put right. Any bookseller who stocked newspapers, he further held, had reasonable opportunity of learning their contents. He did not consider that a severe penalty was required. Defendant would be convicted and fined 20s, with costs £3 10s. Charles .Albert lnnes pleaded guilty to selling ''Truth." Mr Myers said booksellers well knew the character of the paper, but presumably the proprietor of the paper indemnified newsagents against actions that might be taken against them on the paper's account. Defendant was convicted and fined £1. with costs £1 18* 6d. Wm. Mackay and Robert Mackay. newsagents, also pleaded guilty and were mulcted in fines of £1 each and £1 18s 6d oost3. Harold Howard Cording, newsagent., and A. Hawkins, on "Truth's" staff, also pleaded guilty and were similarly dealth with. John Thomas McKinnon, manager of "Truth," was also charged with selling, on January 30th. copies of the paper complained of. Mr Dunn appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr ilycre conducted the case for the police. Willia-m McCarthy, bookseller, said he ordered papers from '-Truth" office and addressed his letters to the- office. -He got 84 copies weekly. Mr Myers: You were defended by "Truth's" , solicitors.—Witness: Yes. Did auyono como round from "Truth ,, office to see you in reference to thus. *matte-r?—A clerk. Did you have anything from "Truth" intimating that you would be indemnified by ''Truth ,, ?— No. No circular?—No; a clerk came to see mc about proceedings to be taken against mc, and told mc, 'It would be all right." Mr Dunn: You have- uever met Mr McKinnon personally at any time?— No.

William Reid, accouiitaut to "Truth," said McKinnon Lad sole charge of the paper in Wellington. To Mr Dunn: McKinnon was ueneral manager of the paper. He did not conduct sales to newsagents; he had nothing to do with the sales of the paper to McCarthy. To Mr Myers: McKinnon had power to say to whom the papers should be sold. Mr Norton was editor of the paper, but McKinnon was his representative. There was a literary staff on tho paper, but no editor. Mr Dunn urged that there was no case to answer, and no evidence, he argued, had been submitted that McKinnon had sold one copy of the paper to defendant. There was merely suggestion. Mr Myers said that if an individual wished to set up a newspaper in New Zealand containing indecent literature, ho. would only require to register in his own name and then leave the Dominion. He considered thnt McKinnon was personally liable for every copy ot the paper sold. His Worship held that defendant was in charge for the owner, and that there was a case to answer. Mr Dunn .asked that the case be allowed to stand as at present, with Icavp to appeal on a law point. His Worship thereupon entered a conviction, accompanied with an order for a fine of £5, with costs £3 9s. Mr Dunn gave notice of appeal. John Thomas McKinnon was again charged with selling certain copies of ♦he "Kew Zealand Truth" on the 13th February. Evidence was given by Charles Albert. Innes. bookseller, and Gilbert Rynu, sub-editor of tho newspaper. Mr Dunn contended that this case was weaker than tin* previous one. There was no evidence, lie sii<7, of a sale by defendant. His Worship remarked that he could perceive no difference in the cases. Although the cases were on different dates they were analogous. He held, however, that a nominal fine would meet the present case. Defendant would be fined 20s, with co-ts £3 14s. Security for appeal was fixed at £10.