AN IMPRINT CASE.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 5335, 2 November 1885, Page 2

AN IMPRINT CASE.

Wellington, October 31,

At the Resident Magistrate's Court this morning R. Ayers, medical herbalist, was charged with a breach of the Printers Registration Ac*, by disposing of certain books without the name of the printer being printed oh them. The pamphlet was merely a catalogue of herbal medicines and printed at home. The counsel for the defence stated that the pamphlet was printed at home, and was sent out here as an advertising medium, just in the same manner in which patent medicines are advertised. If his client was fined every chemist and druggist who gave away a sheet of printed matter, being a catalogue of drugs, would be l'able to a fine, as very few of the handbills had an imprint. Apart, however, from this, the Act was only intended to deal with matter, whether newspapers, books, or handbills, imprinted in the colony, and was not intended to refer to printed matter sent from home. The colonial Act was clearly framed for the protection of the public in case of libel, and was not placed upon the statute book with the view to reach cases similar to that of his client. Ayers was not a printer, and could not be expected to place'the imprint of a printer on the pamphlets sent to him from home. The whole machinery in connection with the Act showed that it was merely a local statute. Inspector Brown said that he had merely brought the case as a test one. He submitted that the colony might be inundated with objectionable literature from home which did not show a printer's imprint if the contention was allowed. The Bench believing that the contention was a fatal one, dismissed the information.