INDECENT DOCUMENT

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 70, 15 December 1928, Page 28

INDECENT DOCUMENT

LEGAL MEANING OF TERM MANUFACTURER FINED £lO “This is a new case, and a new proposition of law never submitted to any Court in this country, or in any part of the British Empire,” said Mr. A. B. Sievwright, in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when appearing for Alexander Von Battenburg, who was charged with sending through the post a letter on which was an indecent statement, A plea of not guilty was entered. Counsel submitted that the statement was not indecent, and suggested that to save time that the point might be argued first.

Chief-Detective Ward explained that defendant, who was the proprietor of a small clothing manufacturing company, recently advertised for a staff. One of the replies came from a woman, who asked to be taken on as a learner. Defendant sent the letter back to her, and wrote on it the remarks which were alleged to be indecent. The suggestion, was that she should become a prostitute, and go into a brothel. He submitted that it was an indecent document, because it related to impure acts and ideas. Mr. Sievwright said that he hoped the Court would look with a great deal of care on a prosecution that had a tendency to extend the law. There was, he added, no case in New Zealand to assist the Court. It seemed, in his opinion, an attempt to extend the Statute, under which the prosecution was laid. Counsel submitted that exception could be taken only to the word “brothel,” and added that if its synonomous term, “house of ill-fame,” had been used, the prosecution would never have been taken. Certainly, he admitted, the word might have been offensive to the recipient of the letter. The Magistrate (Mr. E. Page) reminded counsel that one had to take into consideration the context of the sentence in which the words were used. He did not think that “brothel” was an indecent word if properly used. However, it was alleged that the letter was couched in somewhat insulting terms. Mr. Page quoted a definition of “indecent," which described it as.meaning “anything unbecoming or offensive to common propriety, and added that he had no doubt that the document in question was indecent.. After learning the Magistrates decision Mr. Sievwright announced that he iiad decided to reverse his original plea. In summing up. the Magistrate stated that there appeared fo be two mam features to the ease. Firstly, there seemed to be very little excuse for such a letter to be sent; fortunately the letter was sent to one individual only, and had not been published. Sseeondly there was no sinister desire on Battenburg s part bovond that of insulting the recipient. Defendant was fined £lO and costs. An application for the suppression of his name was refused.