" VENUS AND ADONIS "

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 318, 3 October 1908, Page 6

" VENUS AND ADONIS "

A. TEST CASE. CAN BOOKSELLERS SELL SHAKE'; • SPEARE? SCOPE OF THE OFFENSIVE PUBLICA- : TIONS ACT. 181 TBLIGEIPH—PRESS ASSOCIATION.) ; Chrlstchurch, October 2. lie recent decision Of Mr. H. W. Bishop, 8.M., that certain modern novels : sold by local booksellers were of an immoral character raised; an interesting point, in regard to the It is very generally known that certain portions of the books known bs classics are not distinguished for their modesty. In order to determine the question whether a bookseller, in view of the recent decision given in the Court, could continue to sell the classics without being subject to prosecution,:a test case was arranged, and . was, heard . before Messrs. J. Neate and W. C. Aiken, JJEVs, to-day., An information .: was, laid, against Mr. Geo. Hawkes Whitcombe charging him with having sold certain printed matter contained in Shakespeare's poem • "Venus and Adonis." Mr; Alpers appeared to prosecute and Mr. Wright to defend. Mr. Alpers said that the case was brought inVorder that booksellers might know what their position was in regard to certain classes of literature.; The interests of the public had been duly vindicated and the morality- of the town asserted by the conviction of three young men for selling novels which were declared by the magistrate to be immoral. The booksellers had thousands, or rather millions, of books in'their shops which, from a moral: standpoint, must be .regarded as being much worse than those in respect of which the convictions, were recorded. 1 The prosecution, hoped by getting a. conviction that public attention would be'drawn to the fact that the Offensive Publications Act was intended to deal with grossly immoral advertisements and with the plastering of indecency on walls, etc. It' was not intended that it should be used to exercise a' censorship over literature. That was much too delicate an operation .to be performed in a public .court. If--a" conviction was recorded in this case tho attention of the public and the Legislature would be called to the harsh operation of the Act, which might thereafter be amended:, The poem counsel described as extremely lewd. It they were to apply purity and lewdness as the must come to the conclusion'that it was a : very, lewd book. It might be suggested by the defence that becauseVthe poem was written by one Shake- ; speare it was on a different footing from the books by - Victoria ': Cross and Hubert "Wales. -He contended; however, that it wa.s impossible; • to ' maintain '■; that dirt was any the less dirt because it was'old ; dirt. To say the poem was a classic was also a mistake.' It was .a! very crude piece of work by a very young man,.and Shakespeare would probably say himself that he wrote it" in his boyhood. Both were necessary evils which he had to go through. , As 'a.matter of-fact,' there, was no certainty that the poem was written; by William Shakespeare. The booksellers desired to know. whether they ■ Would be safe in selling the works:of Shakespeare and'o'ther books which might be open to criticism on the lines he had indicated. .

- Mr. Wright, on behalf of -the defendant, said that the case was admittedly;brought to show the utter absurdity of applying the - Police Offences. Act or the Offensive Publication Act to the ; literature; of the Dominion. The latter Act was passed; in England as theresult of the. insertion ;of - certain lewd advertisements •in the of the day advertising >11 sort of quaok nostrums for certain diseases. In order to get at these advertisements, the words," printed matter "' were used. Although, the Act. had been in force injlngland for a great number of years,. and the; taste-of was Veer-.' tainly noi'lowerrVthanAnat'of New Zealand,/ ha had "searched in vain'.for a report of a, case dealing with any books under the Act.; In the New Zealand Criminal Code there was provision that if a book was an obscene or grossly,' offensive book- the offender could be brought before the Supreme (Court,'which could adjudication the matter. ■ He-con-tended that that: was the course which should have been taken by the authorities' in the recent prosecutions. -The Aot-never intended that people selling literature should bo brought-before the Police Court and placed' on the same footing and in the category as those who .distributed leaflets ; or advertisements of the character, to which' he had referred. • The -Act came .before • the: Court of .'Appeal: in the case of King v. Ewart, and it was sought by- the Chief Justice , and Mr. Justice .Cooper*, to fnake booksellers responsible for ; the . literature they sold, irrespecj. tive of whether: tKey .were' aware of the contents of the books.or not.. It-was held, however, that if: , the; bookseller was -unaware of. the contents, of - the: book, he was selling he was -not liable. To meet that the Act of 1905 was passed which altered the law in accordance with the dictate of Sir Eobert Stout and Mr. Justice Cooper by throwing the onus on the bookseller- of showing to the. Court, not ojily that he did not know the character of, the matter .he was selling, but also that he had no reasonable means of knowing, that under the .circumstances his ignorance was excusable. The booksellers or the Dominion-were thus placed in a very awkward position, as to be convicted of a crime like this was to place an intolerable stigma against the good an otherwise respectable and honest citizen. It was to remove, such an anomaly as this that they hoped to get the, law altered; As showing the utter absurdity' of the ' law, he mentioned that Mr.. Whitcombe was/practically asked to act as his own censor,, and he had two million books in his shops m the Dominion. It was physically impossible for him to : be acquainted with the contents of every one of these books. ' Certain' books might have been accepted by the whole of the English-speaking people as unexceptionable, but the law in New Zealand said that the bookseller should not only sit-in judgment on that case but should read the books and . decide whether any particular magistrate or justice would regard them as immoral books. In regard to the present case they desired to know exactly the position they were in. Mr. Alpers : in reply said that the bench was not' concerned with, the absurdity of the Act.' The Act mado it an offence to sell an immoral book, and unless the bench found that " Venus and Adonis" was not immoral, they must convict. Mr. Neate: We don't-make the laws. We are here to administer them.

■ After a short consultation Mr. Neata announced that the, case was dismissed.