LIBRARIAN NOT GUILTY

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23360, 20 June 1941, Page 10

LIBRARIAN NOT GUILTY

BOOK ALLEGED TO BE INDECENT

« NO OPTION BUT TO DISMISS CHARGE”

A prosecution against Louise Hyams ( of the Chancery Book Club, for having in her possession for hire an allegedly indecent document, was dismissed by Mr E. C. Levvey, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The Magistrate held that he was bound by the finding of Mr Justice Blair in a Wellington case which concerned.Boccaccio’s “Decameron.” The book in this case was a novel, “Andrew’s Harvest" by John Evans. Detective-Sergeant J. McClung, prosecuting, said that Hyams had a lending library. The first witness was Frances Brocket!, assistant police matron, who had asked for the book at the library, but was told it was out. Witness had made further inquiries and accused was frank and honest. James Carson Milne, a Customs officer, said he called and asked for “Andrew’s Harvest,” on instructions from his department. On his second visit, witness procured the book and the accused wanted to be paid for its hire. Detective Norman Thompson said that accused had frankly answered his questions about the book. She had told him it was on the shelves When she took- over the library two years before, and said it was impossible for her to read and test every book. To Mr Lascelles, Detective Thompson said the book did not contain obscene words, but rather the “plain putting of simple natural facts.” Passages from the book were read to the Court. •

Detective-Sergeant McClung said that “indecent” was defined as “unbecoming, offensive to modesty and delicacy.” He claimed that the passages read were "indecent.” ■ Mr Lascelles said that both the nature of the book and the defendant’s behaviour over it must be considered by the Court. He read a review of the book, printed in “The Times” Literary Supplement referring to the “simple, vigorous and plain-spoken vocabulary,” The Magistrate said he would accept this as a, literary, guide, but it did not affect the legal position. “They’re wider-minded at Home than we are. They’ve gotrid of a lot of little Victorianisms that we still have here, to our sorrow,” said the Magistrate.

Mr Lascelles said it must be proved that the actions of the defendant were “of immoral or mischievous tendency”; this had been held in a similar case (concerning the “Decameron” of ’ Boccaccio)- by Mr Justice-.Blair, hesaid.

Defendant was of a very high character, and used to be telephone superintendent in Timaru; she had displayed no “immoral or mischievous tendency” over the book’s hire. “Plain Blunt Crude Realism”

As for the nature of the book itself, it contained “plain blunt crude realism, and no vicious high-coloured- sensual obscenities.” It was not a book printed stealthily on a back-street printing press—it had been published by Heinemann, a firm of established high repute. Coming to New Zealand it met no obstruction in the Customs, and reached the lenders’ shelves without any interference until a journalist, reading it, took exception and acquainted the accused with its contents for the first time. Accused immediately removed the book from her shelves and showed it to her most frequent borrower for criticism, and while he had it the police came.

John McKellar Giles, a journalist, said in evidence that he took the book from the library. No one had told him about it; it was just picked up from the shelves. Having read it he showed certain passages to the accused, who said she had not known about it, and would take it off the shelves. To Mr Lascelles, Giles said that the accused had never commended any spicy, mischievous or immoral book to him, and further, did not seem to know the contents of all her books, as she had often given him inaccurate descriptions of the ones he was taking out. Witness had written an article in “New Zealand Truth” a week later, describing the book as unfit for adolescents, and criticising the Customs Department’s application of censorship to imported publications. The accused gave evidence, describing the visits of the previous witnesses. Giles, she said, was a friend of hers, and .when he showed her the marked passages in the book she took it off her shelves. She had never read it before. Accused did not think she had hired the book out again after this, and DetectiveSergeant McClung, cross-examining, said that there were date stamps, April 3, April 17, and May 2, suggesting that it had been returned on those dates. Accused said she thought she had put a stamp on when she gave it to the witness Milne, but was sure she had not hired it out. “No Guilt”

After reading the Supreme Court decision the Magistrate’ said it appeared that instead of meeting the question of indecency alone, the act required proof of the indecency having been pushed forward, and on the face of it there could be no guilt in the present case. In the afternoon, the Magistrate said that the prosecution fell under two headings—the nature of the book, and the behaviour of the accused over it. As for the book, there was one passage in it which brought it under the purview of the act. Mr Justice Blair’s finding had referred to a classic and should not be interpreted so narrowly as to rule this passage as “decent” As for the actions of Miss Hyams,

there was no evidence of her having suggested to anyone that there was. a pornographic book for hire, and if the Court was satisfied (as it had been by the evidence in this case) as to the bona fides pf the accused, they must be taken largely into account, and in fact they overrode the other question, of indecency in the - book.

“Since I am bound by the Supreme Court’s decision, I have no option but to dismiss the Charge,” he said.