"INTOLERANCE"

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3183, 6 September 1917, Page 9

"INTOLERANCE"

PROPRIETY OF ADVERTISEMENT . QUESTIONED AN. UNUSUAL CASE When the ca=o against A. K. lU'Carty. charged with causing to be inserted m tho "Evening Vost" on July Hi. 1917. an advertisement respecting tho picture "iii-lolu-HUce," whereby that newspaper became an indecent document, was called. Mr. P. S. K. Maeassey, of the Crown Law Ouicc, who appeared lor tho prosecution, slated that he wished to withdraw tho information against M'C'arty. A fresh information in connection with tlio matter had been laid against Duncan Kevin, touring manager for •). C. Williamson, Ltd., and that case would be lakcu. ' Mr S. li. M'Carthy. S.M.. was on the bench, and Mr. .-\. Gray, K.C., appeared for the defendant. Mr. Ma.casscy stated that the prosecution arose out of an advertisement inserted jri the "Evening Post"-of .;ury l(i last, lie read the advertisement, which contained severe criticisms of the picture by certain Bunedin clergymen, who characterised tho film as beins immoral, basing their remarks on quotations- iroin a theatrical paper, the "Green Room, published in Sydney. Mr. Macassey said that ho did not contend that the cateineuts made were indecent, it was tho ueo made of the criticisms that constituted tho olfence. They were inserted to attract the public to see the picture. Tho information had been laid under bection 3 of tho Indecent Publications Act, which ho quoted. Tho facts as to tne insertion of the advertisement were artIB Mr. ( Gray, K.C., on behalf of defendant-, stated that the publication of the advertisement was admitted. Tho picture "Intolerance" had'created a great deal of interest wherever shown. It: had beoij shown twice throughout Now and was introduced by J. C. .Williamson, Ltd. . It appeared that in .Tune last Something was said by the "Evening Mar, Dunedin, owing to criticisms of the picture which wcro started by some clergymen in tho course of their sermons on Sunday, June 3. They condemned the picture oirlhri ground that there v,eio somo objectionable features in it., m: Nevia was tho touring manager in conliection with the second production ot tho picture, an<l it was his duty to-in-sert'advertisements in advance In placing tho advertisement of July 10 lie had not the slightest intention o appealing to the people's passions, and hail suggested nothing improper. He was annoyed to think that some strictures wore passed on tho film, and he was moro r-.n----noyed because the quotations which appeared in tho advertisement were not the original statements of the Duncdui clergymen, but were taken by them troin the "Green Eoom" a theatrical paper published- in Sydney, which was opposed to i C. Williamson, Ltd. He inserted the advertisement in tho "Evening Post as a challenge to the. public to see the picture and judge of its merits lor themselves. -There-were a series of advertisements in connection with tho picture inserted in tho paper named, nnd tne particular ono complained of appeared on Monday, July lti. In tho Mlowln ß day s advertisement the criticisms ol Auckland newspapers wero given as a set oil to tne strictures ■of tlio southern clergyman. These advertisements gave both classes of criticisms and left the matter to public judgment. Tho advertisements that appeared, before and after tho one complained of showed that tho defendant had no intention and no desire to suggest auvthing improper. Mr. Nevm saw no harm in the advertisement, neither mil the "Evening P6st," which was conducted with a duo sensfc of propriety. I'urtner, tho picture was passed by the censor, who apparently saw nothing objectionable in it. A. oicrgyinan in Auckland who saw the picture expressed himself as bein" "reatly pleased with tho high moral lesson it taught, and a clergyman in AVclHn"ton connected with scholastic nllairs wrote to Mr. Koyle; the local agent lor J C. Williamson, Ltd., stating that lie had soen tho picture throe ximes, and was so srcatly impressed-with it that ho was taking all his pupils to sco it. He contended that the advertisement. was not indecent by reason of the attending circumstances, and quoted Section 5 of the Act to emphasise the point that tho motives and' purposes of the detendant must be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision. Tho advortisoment was cot inserted to iucite the peoples passions, but to give them tho various criticisms so that they might see and ludgo for themselves. Hβ submitted that a conviction would a serious reflection on a very reputable theatrical firm, who would not tolerate any such thing a3 that complained of, and it would nko bo a reflection, on a well-conducted and reputablo newspaper. Duncan Nevin, Hie defendant, said he had be«u in tho theatrical business about nino years, and wtus in tlio employ ot J C. Williamson. Ltd., during the past twelve months. He had previously been a journalist. Ho inserted several advertisements in tho "Evening Post liiadanco of tho screening ot tho pictuie. The advertisements werp inserted to refuto he remarks of the Dunedin clergymen, which ho thought wcro -anfwr nmi not justified, and a so as a. cialleißO to tho, public to judge the- matter lor themselves. . . . ~ ~ ~ In cross-examination he stated. that nil theatrical advertisements were intend? I to attract people. He inserted tho el- - to induce the public to 'itffer 'lieiiring some brief remark? by Mr. Maciissey tlio Magistrate ccserved hie decision,