Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

HELP A BUSINESS DOCUMENT

APPEAL BY PRINTING COMPANY SUSTAINED CONVICTION QUASHED (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 19. The Full Court by a majority decision to-day allowed the appeal of the To Aroha News Printing and Publishing Company Ltd., and quashed the conviction by a magistrate at Te Aroha in April last for having in January printed pamphlets for publication and omitted to print on them its name, or some known abbreviation of- it, the registered office or place of business as required by the Printers and Newspapers Registration Act, 1908. The leaflet, in respect of which the prosecution took place, purported to be a- copy of a letter written by a physical chemist of the Department of Agriculture to Sorich and Sons, reporting upon the result of experiments made with various articles invented by Sorich for milking machines.

In a joint judgment to-day, the Chief Justice. Sir Michael Myers, Mr Justice Fair, and Mr Justice Northcroft discussed the meaning of Section 8 of the Act, exempting what they said might bo described as business documents from the provision requiring the printer's name and place of business to be printed on the document. The question was whether the leaflet came within the category of the business documents intended to be exempted by Section 8 from the operation of the Act. Upon this question the court was divided, Mr Justice Johnston and Mr Justice Cornish dissenting from the majority view, but it was considered that, as the msVter was at best doubtful, and as in the opinion of the majority of the court Section 8 was intended as a provision in favour of the country's trade and commerce, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the accused persons. Discussing the difficulty of interpreting Section 19 of the Act. which prescribes a penalty of n fine for persons printing or dispersing papers or books which do not bear the name and place of abode of the printer, the court examined various possible constructions of the section and concluded that it may be that the time has arrived when the position recmires careful consideration and entirely new provisions with rotrard to the printer or publisher This, however, was a question for the Legislature.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19451020.2.112

Bibliographic details

Evening Star, Issue 25619, 20 October 1945, Page 9

Word Count
368

HELP A BUSINESS DOCUMENT Evening Star, Issue 25619, 20 October 1945, Page 9

HELP A BUSINESS DOCUMENT Evening Star, Issue 25619, 20 October 1945, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert