INDECENT LITERATURE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 933, 17 January 1890, Page 10

INDECENT LITERATURE.

(per press association.) Christchurch, January 15. The adjourned cases in which several dealers were charged with having indecent literature with of selling it came on at the Magistrate’s Court this morning before Mr R. Beetham, R.M., and Mr R. Westenra. The informations had been laid against James Anderson, a second-band dealer, S. Stephens Powell, bookseller, Charies Christian Somers, bookseller, Wil«

liam Henry Hoskins, second-hand dealer, and Charles Henry Rhodes, bookseller and newsvendor. Mr Martin, the Crown solicitor, said the* informations before the Court had been laid as for an indictable offence, for as far as he could see there was no statute which met the case and enabled the Court to deal with it summarily. If there had been he would like to have followed that course. Judging from English cases recently decided, if the defendants were committed for trial there would be a deal of expense to the country, aud in the end they would be merely fined. He understood, however, that the offence would be admitted if. the informations were laid under the city by-laws. He asked permission to withdraw the present - information and proceed under the city bylaw No. 6. 18S2, wbich provided that no person should distribute or expose or offer for sale, or exhibit any profane, indecent or obscene book, etc. Mr Stringer, for tbe defendants, was willing that this course should be followed. He pointed out that only one of tbe books (“ Nana ’ ) had been the subject of the prosecutions in England against Vizstelly, Zola’s publisher in London. As to the book in the present case, there were many passages as bad, or worse, in books allowed to circulate. He would say that since the prosecution of Vizetelly □one of these books had been imported into this city. Previously they had been sold openly by all booksellers in the Colony with the exception of “ Nana.” There was nothing to indicate that the contents of the books were prohibited. Except the bookseilers read the books ho submitted it would be sufficient to inflict a small penalty, and the defendants would undertake not to sell these books iu the future. Mr Beetham said his own impression was that the less said about this sort of case tbe better. No doubt the books were filthy. He had looked through them, and certainly some of the marked quotations were pretty bad, and some that were not marked were also bad. He was bound to say that he had seen passages quite as bad in other books, but then two wrongs did not make a right. The defendants would be fined £2 each, with the professional fee and costs £2 2s, and costs 7s each, in all £4 9s each.