CLASSICS AND MORALITY

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13872, 5 October 1908, Page 6

CLASSICS AND MORALITY

A TEST CASE. LIABILITY OF BOOKSELLERS. [BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS 'ASSOCIATION.] CHRisxcHtjßCii, Saturday. The. recent decision of Mr. H. W.fßishop, S.M., that certain modern novels, sold by local booksellers were of on immoral character, raised an interesting point in regard to come of the classics. la order to determine the question whether a bookseller, in view of the recent decision given in the Court, could continue to sell these • books withoxifc being subject to prosecution, a test case was arranged, and was. heard before Messrs. J. Neale and W. C. Aiken, J.P.'s. An information was laid against Geo. Hawkes Whitcombe, charging him with having sold certain printed matter contained in Shakespere's poem "Venus and Adonis." Mr. Alpers appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Wright to defend. ' ' ) ' . Mr. Alpers said, that the case was brought in order that booksellers might know what their position was in regard to certain classes of literature. The prosecution hoped, by getting a conviction, that public attention would be drawn to the fact that the Offensive Publications Act was intended to deal with grossly immoral advertisements, and with plastering indecently on walls, etc. It was not intended that it should be used to exercise a censorship over literature. That was much too delicate an operation to be performed in a public Court. If a conviction was recorded in this case, the attention of the public and the Legislature would be called to the harsh operation of the Act, which might thereafter be amended. To say the poem was a classic was a mistake. It was a very crude piece of work by a very young man, and Shakespere would probably say himself that he wrote it in his boyhood. As a matter of fact there was u< certainty that the poem was written by Wm. Shakespere. The booksellers desired to know whether they would be safe in selling the works of Shakespere and other books which might be open to criticism, on the lines he had indicated." Mr. Wright, on behalf of the defendant, said that the case was admittedly Drought to show tho utter absurdity of applying the Police Offences Act or the Offensive Publications Act to the literature of the Dominion. In tho New Zealand Criminal Code there was a provision that if a book was an obscene or grossly offensive book the offender could be brought before Die Supreme Court, which would adjudicate on the matter. He contended that this was the course -which, should have been taken by the authorities in the recent prosecutions'. Tho Act came before the Court of Appeal in the case of the King v. Ewart, and it was sought by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Cooper to make booksellers responsible for literature they sold, irrespective of whether they were aware of the contents of the books or not. It was held, however, that if the bookseller was unaware of the contents of the i book he was BCliirHg, he was not liable. To meet that the Act of 1905 was passed, which altered the law in accordance with the dicta of Sir Robert Stout and Mr. Justice Cooper, by, throwing the onus on the bookseller of showing to the Court not only that he did not know the character of the matter lie was selling, but also that he had no reasonable means of knowing. In regard to the present case they desired to know exactly the position they were in. •' : '■.;"/' ■"■•' \ " After a short consultation, Mr. Neale announced that the case was dismissed. h