PRINTING PLANT

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 9, 10 July 1935, Page 12

PRINTING PLANT

REGISTRATION LAW

SUPREME COURT APPEAL

LEGISLATION OF 1798

The necessity of a newspaper to register its printing presses, in addition to registering as a newspaper, was debated in the Supreme Court today before Mr. justice Reed when Truth (N.Z.) appealed against a conviction entered by Mr. E. Page, S.M., on a charge of keeping an unregistered printing press. The Magistrate had held that under the provisions of, the Printers and Newspapei-s Registration Act, • 1908, every printing press (whether used for the printing of a newspaper or for printing any other matter or for both) must be registered. At the hearing of the appeal today Mr. H. F. O'Leary, K.C., with him Mr. J. H. Dunn, appeared for the appellant company, and Mr. C. Evans-Scott for the respondent. Section 3 of the Printers and Newspapers Registration Act, 1903, said Mr. O'Leary, was to the effect that every^ person who had a printing press or types for printing should notify the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the fact and receive from him a certificate under the Act. In the same Act section 10, under the heading "Registration of Newspapers," required that the names of the printer and publisher of a newspaper should be supplied to the Regis-trar-of the Supreme Court. The appellant company, continued Mr. O'Leary, had always complied with section 10 of the Act, and the contention was that having complied with that section there was no necessity to comply with section 3. It was contended that the purpose of both sections was to give the name or names of the printer or printers, so that if any paper or newspaper or book was issued without complying with the various sections, the printers would be known and could be questioned as to whether or not a particular publication emanated from their works. It was submitted that this purpose of obtaining the name or names of the printers was obtained either by giving notice that one had a printing press, under section 3, or by complying with section 10 by giving notice of one's intention to print a newspaper and giving the names of the printer and publisher.. .. DOUBLE OBLIGATION. "I submit that a consideration of the history of the legislation shows that the purpose ♦of this legislation was to get the name of the printer and not to register a printing press," continued Mr. O'Leary. "Secondly, it was not. intended that there should be a double obligation by a newspaper such as would be imposed, and is imposed, if the conviction in this case is correct." . Counsel referred his Honour to the register kept in respect of section 3, and said that it would be seen that it contained merely namesand addresses. There was no identification of the printing presses or of the types for printing. , His Honour: Well what is the practice? ' . Mr. O'Leary. Well, I can only speak of this particular firm. His Honour: This is the only prosecution that there has been. . Mr. O'Leary: No, sir, there have been a number of prosecutions. His Honour: But not connected with newspapers.—No, sir. Mr. Evans-Scott: I think the other papers in Wellington comply with that section. Mr. O'Leary: I am informed that New Zealand "Truth" publishes only a newspaper. The other papers, in addition to publishing a newspaper, do all sorta of jobbing work. BACK TO 18TH CENTURY. Going back to the .history of the legislation, Mr. O'Leary said that the original New Zealand Act was passed in 1868. It was expressed as an Act for preventing the printing and publishing of books and papers by persons not known. The Act of 1868, said Mr. O'Leary, was the commencement of this legislation in New Zealand, but it was not the commencement of the legislation in the Empire. The legislation went back to 1798 and 1799, and it was extraordinary that it had been retained in New Zealand in practically tha identical form that it was enacted in those years. In England this"particular provision as to printing presses had been out of existence for nearly 70 years, and the requirements as to newspaper registration had been whittled.- down, and were not merely so stringent as the requirements in New Zealand. In England a company owning- a newspaper was under no obligation whatever to register its newspaper. His Honour: Do you say there was no necessity to register presses before 1868? ■ Mr.' O'Leary: No, 1799. ■' The 1908 Act is a reprint of the provisions of 1798-1799. The Act of 1798,. continued Mr. O'Leary, was repealed and re-enacted in the reign of William IV. In the Act passed in the reign of William IV provision was made for a newspaper to give notice that it had a printing press, clearly indicating, it was submitted, that the printing- press legislation of 1798 did not apply to newspapers. CUMULATIVE SECTIONS. It was submitted by Mr. Evans-Scott that sections 3 and 10 of the Act were cumulative. v' The object of the Act, as Mr. O'Leary had suggested, was to prevent the printing or publishing of printed matter by any undisclosed or unknown persons. The legislation had sought to achieve that object in two ways. It had at first required the disclosure and registration of the owner Of every printing press, and, secondly, the printer and publisher of every newspaper. Under section 3 registration was necessary even though the press might not be in use. That section, contended Mr. Evans-Scott, was aimed at the owner of a press, and the owner only. s Dealing with the double obligation imposed on newspapers, counsel said that, apart from section 3 there was no provision under the Act requiring the disclosure of the name of the owner of a printing press. As to the contention that the appellant company published only a newspaper, and newspaper posters, counsel said that the company had two large presses for printing its newspaper, and smaller plant for other work. • It might be that at the. present time the appellant was not doing any other printing work, but it might easily use the smaller plant for other work at any time it chose to do so. At the conclusion of argument his Honour said that, although he did not have much doubt about the case, he would take time to consider the question out of deference to Mr. O'Leary's argument.