COMPANY FINED £30

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 206, 28 May 1938, Page 8

COMPANY FINED £30

Publication Of Indecent Document

OFFENCE ADMITTED

A fine of £3O and costs was the penalty imposed on Matheson and Wilkinson Ltd., in the Magistrates’ Court, Wellington, yesterday. The charge against the company was that it published an indecent document, which took the form of an advertising magazine distributed free to its retailers. Mr. J. 11. Luxford, S.M., who was on the bench, said that although the breach was committed through an agent of the company, the oidy way a corporate body could infringe the law was through one of its recognised agents. Mr. G. H. A. Swan appeared for defendant company, on whose behalf he pleaded guilty, and DetectiveSergeant P. Doyle prosecuted for the police. It was stated in evidence by Detective-Sergeant W. R. Murray that he interviewed Mr. I M. Matheson, a director of the company, and showed him one of the magazines. Mr. Matheson said that he left the compiling of the magazine to one of his subordinates, and that as soon as he saw the nature of the publication he took steps immediately to have it withdrawn.

In cross-examination by Mr. Swan, witness said that prior to seeing Mr. Matheson he was already aware that steps had been taken to stop the circulation of the publication. Witness had seen other magazines issued by the company, and no exception was taken to them. He was satisfied with Mr. Matheson’s explanation that he had issued a circular recalling all the magazines.

Mr. Swan expressed the regret of the company for unwittingly allowing the publication. Mr. Matheson authorised an agent to produce the magazine, and he had not seen any of the matter objected to before it was distributed. The matter was in the bands of the advertising manager. When he knew of its nature the great majority of the magazines were destroyed, and the firm suffered considerable loss through the issue. The firm did not consider the type of article or illustration in the magazine good advertising. “It seems quite clear that the trouble arose from the act of a subordinate officer of the company,” said Mr. Luxford. “I accept the assurance that the directors did not authorise the publication of the magazine in the form in which it now appears, but the mere fact that the directors made a delegation does not alter the question of penalty.”