INDECENT MATTER

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6823, 20 May 1909, Page 6

INDECENT MATTER

THE "NEW ZEALAND TRUTH” ARTICLES. BOOKSELLERS AND OTHERS CONVICTED. Yesterday morning, in the Magistrate's Court, Mr W. 0. Riddell, S.M., finally iieard tlio eases in which booksellers and jthers were charged with selling copies nf Hie publication known ns "New Zealand Truth,'’ alleged to contain matter of an imle-cnt, obscene or immoral nature. Thors weru eight charges in nil, and his Wor-liip entered a conviction hi fach of them, holding t.hat the articles complained of were indecent. THE CHARGES. Following Is a list of tho persons charged, and the accusations against them ; Charles Albert limes, on February ilOth, selling to Edwin Blake certain printed matter, namely a copy ot •’New Zealand Truth," winch contained parts headed. "A Terrible Tale." "A Citizen's Alarm,' and ‘A Worm Turns.” alleged to bo of an in-joew’-k, immoral or olwtcnc nature. Uonrv William M'-Carthy, on i'cb; ruury tflth, seUiiiK ( ’ l) Dy °l .* r . u^1 v containing aließed immoral, indecent or obscene articles headed Ihe Kiltie’s Kuddle." ‘'Sarah Stalked, oi "In the Park.” John Thomas McKinnon (two «wi, soiling to C. A. limes and ,11. W. McCarthy copies ot the pupeis mentioned above. Harold Leonard Cording. Millmm Maclcay, and Robert Alackay, selling to A. 0. Quarterinam copies ot a paper containing an alleged immoral, indecent, or obscene article headed "CTirMtchuroliuina." Arthur Hawkins, selling to li. I. Hooves u copy of the paper containing the article headed “Cliristchurciuana." The defendant McKinnon is manager of the paper concerned, and the defendant Hawkins is an employee of the poper. All the other defendants are booksellers carrying on business in tho °*lSr M. Alyera conducted the prosecution, Mr T. At. TV illord and All A, Dunn appearing on tho defendants' behalf. HISTORY OF THE CASES. The cases have already been before tbe Court several times. When they were linst called on about three weeks ago they* were adjourned until Ihursday, Mav Gtli.’ when the charge against Henry \Viliinan McCarthy was hoard. IDs \Vorship reserved Ills decision, until Muy 101 m, when a curious position arose. At tho hearing, Air Wilford, on behalf ot fcho drt'eiuUuifc, had assorted that tho information contained three separate sharges—ono that tho articles complained ot were indecent, one that they weio immoral, and a third that they wcio obscene. He held that Air Myers should elect to take one word of tho threeindecent, immoral, or obscene—and proceed on that charge alone. Air A\ Ilford’s objection was over-ruled by bis Worship, and tho case proceeded. Heforo judgment was delivered, however. Air Wilford discovered a recent case in the “Times" Law Reports, supporting his view of the matter, and proving him to bo correct in his assertion that Air Myers should have elected to proceed on only one of the words. It was therefore arranged that the case should be reheard, and that in tho meantime his Worship should read the cases mentioned. That rehearing came on yesterday. As before, the first case called was tliat against Henry Wiliam McCarthy. CASE FOB THE CROWN. AD* Myers intimated that he elected to take' the information on tho word "indecent." , , Air Wilford admitted tho tact,of the sale of tho paper. Mu Myers said that ■he had already put in the paper, and thug his case was concluded. AXE WILFORD IN DEFENCE. Air Wilford, addressing his Worship, said that by taking tho word "indecent, his friend had abandoned tho charges of Immorality unci obscenity. Thus he must trove that something in the articles was indecent, but not immoral or Counsel wont nt length into the meaning of the word "indecent." He held that bis Worship, if ho convicted the defendant, should point out which part of the articles -complained of he held to be indecent. Should his client elect to go to appeal it would only bo fair to him to know which particular phrases were supposed to lie indecent. At present he was in the dark ns to which words were objected to. Counsel further contended that the articles named in tho information were indecent only to men of prurient mind. The artic lea were written, not with the inteittion of being dirty, but to expos© a sore -and to point a moral. HR MYERS REPLIES.

Mr Myers said that his friend had asserted that the information implied that the articles were neither immoral nor obscene. Hero Mr AVilford was quite wrong. The prosecution still alleged that the articles were indecent, immoral, and obscene, although it had been decided to take the word '‘indecent/' which was tho mildest of the three. Counsel hold that there were three charges, of which he was proceeding on one. Ho declined to point out to Mr AVilford any particular paragraph lino or word which he alleged to bo indecent. Tho prosecution held that the whole of each article was indecout. An article could very well be indecent ns a whole, without there being a single indecent word in it. A CONVICTION ENTERED.

Hia Worship said that since the cases •were last before the Court ho had read the articles mentioned in the information, and had looked into several cases dealing with similar matters which had been heard by. various Magistrates, and also the case of Bex v. Ewart in which a newspaper had been alleged to contain articles of on indecent nature. After reading the articles, his Worship had formed a certain opinion, which he had not changed after hearing Mr Wilford. The matter was not ono which required a lengthy judgment. It was merely a question of the opinion of the individual who road the articles and by whom the informations wore heard. The . publication concerned was ono which was sold indiscriminately. There was no check whatever on its sale, and it might be sold to anyone—to youths and young gii-ls, to middle-aged peoxilc, and to old people, all of whom could purchase the paper and road the articles if they chose. In his Worship’s opinion the articles were indecent. There was nettling further to eny in the matter. If his opinion was wrong it might bo put right on appeal. The defendant had had a reasonable opportunity Of knowing what the paper contained, ns every bookseller who stocked it must have. The defendant was n respectable bookseller, and there was no reason why a heavy penalty should be imposed on him. The penalty would bo an ordinary one. whie 1 ought, however, to make the defendant more careful in future. The defendant would bo lined XI with costs .£3 10s. THE QUESTION OF INTENT. Tho next case, called was that of Charles Albert Inncs, who elected to be dealt with summarily, and pleaded guifty. Mr Wilford said that although the defendant had pleaded guilty he would ask Mr Myers to sav that ho was satisfied that the defendant had not intended to sell an indecent article. Mr Myers said ho did not wish to suggest for a moment that the defend-

ant know that the articles complained of wore indecent. Ko wished to point out, however, that this was not the first time that that particular paper had boon before the Court. There were two similar oecaMons—onco against an employee of -the paper, who was fined, and once again l !- the manager, which was dismissed, because the defendant was able_to prove that ho was not in Wellington wh.ju tho particular number coiupl-ameu of was published, and could not therefore possibly have known what wau in the paper. ‘Uookseilers should therefoic know the risk they nm m selling tin paper. They might not know what it contained, but they might purposely have refrained from reading it so as to be able to say they had nd'actual knowledge of its content's in cane of a prosecution. I'lC.siimuOly the proprietary of the paper indcmmfiul booksellers against such prosecutions as the present. He was prepared to accept the statement made by* the defendant that he did not know what the paper contained, but he wished his acceptance to be qualified by the .statement lie had just made. ills Worship fined the defendant XX, with costs XI lbs 6d. OTHER CASES.

Harold Leonard Cording, William Mackay, and Hubert Mackay, all pleaded guilty through Mr Wilford, Each of them was fined XI, with costs <£l lbs fid. A similar penally was imposed on Arthur Hawkins, who also pleaded guilty, and who was described by Mr Wilford as a junior clerk employed to sell ti.e pax>er. "TRUTH'S" MANAGER CHARGED

The next charge investigated was that against John Thomas McKinnon, of selling n paper to Henry William McCarthy, one of the previous defendants. The defendant, who elected to bo dealt with summarily, pleaded not guilty. Henry William McCarthy, bookseller, 146, Ingestro street, said he had been in the habit of soiling ‘‘New Zealand Truth.” He bought the papers from the ottioe. Ho thougai that the defendant MrKinnou was manager of the paper. Ho first got his x>apers by writing'a note addressed to the manager. Ko paid for has copies to a collector who cam© to his shop. The witness got oightyfour copies per week. A clerk from "Truth" came to the witness with regard to his being defended in his own case by "Truth’s” solicitors. A clerk onoc called on. him and told him. that he need not .worry about selling "Truth," giving him the idea that he would bo indemnified in case of proceedings boing taken.

William Reid, accountant to "Now Zealand Truth," said that the paper was owned by John Norton and managed by the defendant, who had solo charge. Tho witness and *ll other servants of "Truth" were under the defendant's direction. To Air Dunn i The defendant had nothing io do with the actual sale of the paper to newsagents. To Mr Myons; Tho defendant had power to say whether Ar not papers should be sent to any particular person. He could not say who was editor ot the paper. Ho did not know whether tho defendant know what was in the paper before it was published. This was the case for the prosecution.

Air Dunn submitted that there was no ease for the defence to answer. There wa.g no evidence that the defendant had sold tho paper. There was merely a suggestion of it. The real defendant was John Norton, and not AlcKinnon, who was merely an agent. He asked his Worship to rule that there was no case to answer.

Mr Myers contended that the defendant must be personally responsible for tlie sale of every paper by “Truth. - ’ Booksellers and others independent of tho paper, of course, had to bear the responsibilities of their own actions, but the defendant must be held liable when tho sale was made by the paper. His Worship held that there was a case to answer.

After conferring with the defendant, Mr Dunn said that he would let the caso stand where it was. The defendant would probably appeal on the point of law—that it was the proprietor of tbe paper, and not he, who was liable. His Worship thereupon convicted tbe defendant, and fined him £5, with costs ,E 3 13s. Security for appeal was fixed at -CIO.

Tlie same defendant then pleaded not guilty to the char-go of selling a paper to Charles Albert Inncs. Charles Albert Junes said he got thirty copies of “Truth" a week. They came from tho office of tho pajier. He had been selling "Truth" since it began, but he could not say with whom he made tho original arrangement. Gilbert I’yan, sub-ej"' of “Truth,” said that the defendant Had been manager of the paper for over three years at least. The defendant was the nominal editor of the paper Air Dunn submitted that this case was weaker even than the previous one. There was no evidence in this case, as in the last, that a letter had been written to the manager for papers. His "Worship said he could see no difference between the two cases. The defendant would be convicted and fined £l, with costs £3 Us.

Air Dunn gave notice of appeal in this case also.