INDECENT PUBLICATION

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16214, 17 May 1918, Page 5

INDECENT PUBLICATION

upper hutt Editor CONVICTED.

The police, represented by Chief-De-tectivc Boddam, proceeded at Upper Hutt on Tuesday against Angus John McCurdy for publishing an indecent advertisement in the "jautt Valley Independent," of which ho is the editor. xMr e>. Jii. McCarthy, iS.M., occupied the Bench. Accused conducted his own-defence. * % *

McCurdy is also proprietor of a picture theatre, and the advertisement, winch was toe cause of the complaint, brought before the notice of the public the screening of a certain film. The gravity of tlie offence lay in the suggestion contained in tho advertisement thdt the picture to be shown was such as would appeal to prurient minds. •

The only evidenco called by the prosecution was the formal evidence of Constable Guminings as to the purchase of tho paper, which was handed in. Detective Boddam said that tho clear purpose of the advertisement or article, as the defence jchose to call it, -was to attract the public to seo the picture for tho purpose of swelling the theatre recoigts.

Accused, in giving evidence on his own behalf, said the advertisement complained of was really an articlo to cause parents to see the picture, bo that they might give their children a lesson. Tho idea was not that the receipts of the theatre might bo swelled. He considered the matter a trivial one, and that only persons of tainted minds would consider the article indecent.

In his decision, the Magistrate said he had to deal only with the advertisement or article. The advertisement indicated that the film had to do with sexual matters. ■ Such films might be correct if shown under proper ' safeguards* The advertisement was an. invitation to all and sundry to attend, and no doubt, the avorage member of tho public would expect matter of a very indecent nature. His decision was that the advertisement ' came under the clause in the Act relating to such pubjications, and in his opinion was an indocent publication. Accused •would be convicted and fined £10, with costs amounting to 7s.

McCurdy pointed put that the fine in another similar ease was £5, and requested the Bcneh to reconsider its decision. The Magistrate refused. The alternative was fixed at two months' imprisonment.