ALLEGED INDECENT PICTURES.

Evening Star, Issue 12900, 24 August 1906, Page 4

ALLEGED INDECENT PICTURES.

'■■ *. At the Police Court this morning, before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., the police proceeded against Harry- Sutton, who was charged with having "exhibited at 76 George street a certain picture of an indecent nature. Mr A. C. Hanlon, who appeared for defendant, asked for an adjournment of one week. Defendant was merely the manager of his employer's business, and as the latter had just arrived from the North' he wished to have an opportunity of fully instructing counsel.—The police offering no objection, the desired remand was granted. Denby Terry was charged with having sold a certain postcard of an indecent nature. There was also an information of a similar kind laid against Mary Sullivan, defendant's assistant.—Mr Hay appeared on behalf of Tern', who pleaded not guilty. Cliief-detective Herbert said the facts were that on the 15th inst. Mr Eobert Campbell Begg, a University student, went to defendant's shop, and purchased the card produced, and initialled it on the back. Defendant was present in his shop at the time the purchase was made from the assistant. Mr Begg handed the card to the police. Detective Hunt saw both defendants next dav. and they denied any knowledge of the sale. R. C. Begg gave evidence in accordance with this statement, and said he did not know whether the assistant at the time of the sale had any knowledge of the natuxo of the card. To Mr Hay : He was an. art student, but mteded to study for the ministry. Mr Hay : Yes; you arc a theological student. Are you also a student of postcards? His Worship : That is unnecessary. ■ To Mr Hay : Witness had looked through about four bundles of cards before he' came across the card produced. He was not a collector of post-cards. His first object in making the purchase was to try and bring a prosecution; his second object was to try and put down the sale of indecent post-cards. If he saw flagrant breaches of the law he would consider it necessary to ta.ke personal action. He did not go into the shon with the intention of instituting a prosecution; it was th« ■purchase of the particular card which determined him to instigate the present proceedings. He did not tell the assistant that the card was an improper one to sell. His opinion at the time was that the card needed investigating. Detective Hunt said he visited dofendani's shop on the 16th inst., when lerry and his assistant denied having so.d tbo card produced. Terry said ho had had _ similar cards in stock, but after the Uc-lluigton prosecutions he bad got rid of lL«m He further said that he had had a pood look through his stock, but failed to find any of these card?, though one imVht have been left. Witness looked tb-rougb°nll the post-cards hi the shop, brat could find none tnat were offensive. Mr Hay sand that the information was laia under the i 892 Offensive Publications Act, which provided for the maximum penalty »f £5, in default three months' imprisonment. The charge was that defendant did sell a certain picture—to wit, a postal rd of an indecent nature In the first place, as he need hardlv point out to His Worship, defendant did'not sell the card; the sala was executed by hia assistant However, he (counsel) was not relying en that point. There were two joints in connection with the matter which would lie submitted for His Worship's ruling. Was His Worship satisfied rlrat the card was of an indecent nature? When it came before Dr M'Arthur in Wellington he decided it waa not His Worship: Yes, and when it ca.mo before Mr Bishop in ChristchuTch he decided that it was. Mr Hay raid then at would be for His Worship to rely upon his own judgment. He submitted that to a wicked mind perhaps the card would apj>ear an indecent one, but to a pure mind it would not The offensiveness would depend on the wickedness of the mind of the purchaser. Counsel's main defence was that under the Act ft was necessary to prove that there was guilty knowledge. There was no direct evidence to showjthat either Terry or the young lady knew anything of the nature of the card. The roost Mr Begg could say was that the latter had an opportunity of gaining that knowledge. If he (counsel) could prove that the card gob into the bundle without the knowledge of defendant, aud through inadvertence, he submitted that defendant was entitled to a dismissal. Mary Sullivan said sho had been two months at defendant's shop, acting as assistant. She h:td never seen the card produced or sold one like it. People had inquired for a card of that description, but she had always told them that they did not stock it. She did not remember Mr Begg. To the best of her knowledge she did not sell him the card. If she had done so, it would have been unintentionally and unwittingly. It could have been sold' without her having taken any notice of its nature. Denby Terry, the defendant, said that after reading of the Wellington cases he went through' his stock, and finding about half a dozen cards similar to the one produced he destroyed them. It was then, his belief that there were no more of that subject left. His Worship: Of course, in judging a post-caTd, you know, you have not only to consider the picture itself but the wording on it. Defendant: I admit, that, sir. His Worship said them was one point in the case he would like to so that he would defer judgment until Tuesday next. The case against the assist ant would also stand over till then.