"MAY BE ARCHAIC”

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 247, 16 July 1935, Page 2

"MAY BE ARCHAIC”

Law For Registration of Printing Presses

MAGISTRATE UPHELD “It may be that our legislation is archaic, but that is a question for the legislature aud does not affect the construction of the very plain language of the section,” stated Sir. Justice- Reed-in. a reserved judgment in the Wellington Supreme Court yesterday in agreeing with the magistrate in the conviction of "Truth” (N.Z.), Ltd., for an offence under section 3 of the Printers and Newspapers Registration Act. 1908. The company, in a Supreme Court appeal against the decision which was given by Mr. E. I’agc, S.M., contested its liability under the legislation concerning the registration of printing presses. In dismissing the appeal, Mr. Justice Reed held that Mr. Page had given the correct interpretation of the Statute. The company had been convicted and fined £5 on a charge of not having complied with the provisions of section 3, which reads in part as follows: Every person who has any printing-press or types shall give to the registrar of the Supreme Court ollice notice in writing signed by the person having the printingpress or types, and attested by a witness, and the registrar shall give a certificate under the Act. If the printing-press or types are owned by an incorporated company, the notice inay be signed and given by the manager, managing director, or chairman of directors. Full Compliance Necessary. “It was admitted,” stated Mr. Justice Reed, “that the appellant had a printingpress and had not delivered the notice required and was not in possession of a certificate. It was contended, however, that as the company had complied with section 10 of the Act it was excused from complying with section 3. “Eliminating the irrelevant parts ot section 10, it reads as follows: ‘Where any person desires to publish a newspaper,. . the publisher of such newspaper shall deposit with the registrar of the Supreme Court ollice nearest to the place where such newspaper is or is intended to be published an affidavit duly sworn and signed by the ‘proprietors of such newspaper and by the persons intended to be the printer and the publisher thereof respectively.’ “The contention is that as the name of the printer of the newspaper is disclosed in this affidavit, the Statute must be read as limiting the requirements of section 3 to printing-presses which are not .the property of the proprietors of a newspaper or used in connection with the printing of a newspaper,” his Honour continued. “Mr. O'Leary supports his contention • with an interesting _ and exhaustive examination of the history ot the legislation in the matter, tracing it back to the English legislation of. 1798 and 1799. ... “So far as I am informed and can discover there is now no provision in any English Act similar to our section 3 requiring the registration of printing presses. Further, the English Act of 1881, now regulating the registration of newspapers, does not require any information as to the intended printer of the newspaper to be supplied by the proprietors, as required by our section 10. The printer of a newspaper, however, is bound to print on the front and last page his name and address; this is usually termed the ‘imprint.’

English Law Differs. “The result of this legislation is that so far as England is concerned the legislature appears to consider it no longer necessary to know, generally, the x situation or ownership of printing-presses: it is satisfied with the special information conveyed by an imprint on printed matter. This does not, however, affect the interpretation of our Statute; it may be that our legislation is archaic, but that is a question for the legislature aud does not affect the construction of th e very plain language of the section. The wording is general in its terms. .• • There is no suggestion or implication of any qualification or exemption either in the section or in the other parts of the Statute. I think that the appellant company was rightly convicted.” Mr. 11. F. O’Leary, K.C., with Mr. J. H. Dunn, appeared for appellant company, and Mr. C. Evans-Scott for the Crown.