OFFENSIVE PUBLICATIONS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4513, 14 November 1901, Page 3

OFFENSIVE PUBLICATIONS.

Special to the “Times.” DUNEDIN, November 13. Mr Justice U'miams tcbday gave an im. poi Taut decision in an appeal from a Magistrate’s decision, acquitting Wm. Hammond Lovell, who was charged with a breach of tho Offensive Publications Act by offering a certain American book for sale. The Magistrate decided that the book was not immoral or indecent, but sjmply a medical work. The police claimed that section 5 of the Act took the definition out, of the Magistrate's hands, and made it an offence to sell, any book dealing with tho subject. His Honor said: The Magis, Irate has found, as a matter of fact that the work in question has not an indecent or immoral effect, but the contrary. So far as I am able to jiftlgo from the little I have seen of the work, 1 agree with what the Magistrate has found. It is eontended, however, that although the Magistrate has found this as a fact, yet as a matter of law, by reason of a portion of the contents of the book, the book is an indecent publication, and that the person who pelH it is liable to punishment under the Act of 1802. Mr Eraser relies on section sof that Act- If the construction till# Mr Eraser asks the Court to place upon section 5 is the correct one, it would ho a criminal offence for any bookseller to sell to any medical man any medical work relating to the .subjects specified- In, deed, any medical man who had such a work in his possession, if he were to show that work to any other medical man, would, on the construction contended for, be liable to prosecution and conviction under this Act. Such a result is so startling and absurd that if the Court can in any reasonable way give ft different construction to tho statute the Court ought to give a, different construction. I_ think that a different construction can fairly be given to it. Section 5 says that “any advertisement or other publication” relating to the matters which I have men. tioned shall be deemed to bo printed nr written matter of an indecent nature with, in tho meaning of section 3 of the Act. Tho section does not say ‘‘any publico, tjon,” but “any advertisement or other publication.” The mischief of the section is therefore primarily directed to advertisements, and as a matter of history, one is aware that one of the main objects o r tho Act was to restrain the mischief done bv the advertisements of quack doctors. There is a very well-known rule of con. struction that if a general word follows a particular and specific word of the same nature as itself it takes its meaning from that word, and is presumed to be restricted to the same genus as that word. No doubt that rule is one which has to he followed with care, but if not to follow it leads to absurd results, then I am of opinion that it ought to he followed, and I thin 1, it should be followed in this case. I think tho meaning of section 5, where it says ‘‘any advertisement or other publics, tion.” is any advertisement or other publication in the nature of an advertise, ment. That gives full effect to the genera 1 intention of the Act, and it does not lead to the absurd result, of making criminal the sale on any possible occasion of workrelating to these matters, however bona fide such a sale may be. For these reasons I think the appeal should be dismissed. Costs were allowed the respondent.